Real Estate Firm, Timeless Properties Limited, Suffers Loss of Prized Seafront Land in Mombasa
The Court of Appeal in Mombasa has ruled in favour of the Technical University of Mombasa (TUM), resolving a long-standing dispute over a seafront property that was illegally sold to Timeless Properties Limited. The court upheld TUM’s title over the disputed seafront land, confirming that Timeless Properties Limited did not have valid ownership rights to the property.
The ruling, made on July 31, 2025, in the case of Timeless Properties Limited v Chief Land Registrar & 2 Others, dismissed Timeless Properties’ claim because they failed to qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice. This means they knew or should have known about TUM’s registered interest in the land before acquisition.
The court found it disturbing that despite having bought the land, Timeless Properties had not produced a report by a land surveyor, an investigation agency, or a forensic document examiner, or a report from the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI), the established expert on demonstrating the allegation of fraud. The judges ruled that Timeless cannot benefit from the doctrine of bona fide purchaser.
Justice Naikuni, who presided over the case, stated that Timeless Properties failed to produce empirical documentary evidence to support its claims that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The trial judge also pointed out that Timeless had failed to produce copies of the sale agreement with terms and conditions stipulated therein, transfer forms, application, and letter of clearance by the Commissioner of Lands, copies of mutation forms, maps, or receipts of statutory payments such as stamp duty and registration fees.
Despite having bought the land for over 12 years, as claimed, Timeless had never taken possession of the land. The title to Mombasa Block X/430 in the name of Timeless has not been produced. Timeless Properties claimed it was issued with a Certificate of Lease by the Government of Kenya, having purchased the land for value from its "predecessors" in July 2006.
The property in question is a seafront plot that has been used by TUM for marine engineering-related academic courses since the 1950s. The disputed land has a creek that fronts the sea line and has been used by TUM for marine engineering-related academic courses since the 1950s.
TUM intends to revive teaching of these courses in the building on the disputed land. The court's decision is a significant win for the university, ensuring that it can continue to provide essential educational services in marine engineering.
It is worth noting that no proof of fraud was provided by any of the parties in the case. The property developers said the interest purchased was a reversionary interest of a lease of 99 years from July 1, 1997, and the purchase price was Sh4 million.
[1] Timeless Properties Limited v Chief Land Registrar & 2 Others (2025) eKLR [2] Daily Nation, "Court of Appeal orders reversal of land belonging to Technical University of Mombasa," July 31, 2025.
- Despite possessing the property for over 12 years, Timeless Properties Limited failed to provide sufficient evidence to be considered a 'bona fide purchaser', as required in finance and investing, due to their lack of empirical documentary evidence and failure to fulfill legal requirements such as producing a sale agreement, transfer forms, and commissioner of lands clearance.
- In the realm of real-estate and politics, the Court of Appeal in Mombasa ordered the reversal of a seafront property, originally sold to Timeless Properties Limited, back to the Technical University of Mombasa (TUM), confirming that Timeless Properties Limited did not have valid ownership rights to the property.
- The ongoing battle over the seafront property between Timeless Properties Limited and the Technical University of Mombasa (TUM) also involved the 'industry' of land surveyors, investigation agencies, forensic document examiners, and the Directorate of Criminal Investigation (DCI), as the court found it troublesome that Timeless Properties had not commissioned any reports from these experts, notably in the investigation of fraud allegations.
