Eunice Njoki Kiruri (Suing as the legal administrator of the estate of the late Nahashon Gichu Muchembe) v Richard Kipruto Koech [2018] KEELC 3232 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a Temporary Occupation Licence dies with the licensee and cannot be inherited, dismissing the family's land ownership claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status and inheritability of a Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL)
A TOL confers only a personal permission to occupy, creates no proprietary interest, and lapses on the death of the licensee; it cannot be inherited or be the subject of succession.
The court examined section 2 of the Land Act and section 40 of the Government Lands Act (repealed), which governs TOLs and their termination by three months' notice. It then applied binding Court of Appeal authority (Runda Coffee Estates and Faraj Maharus) holding that such licences are personal, assignable in nothing, and expire on death, leaving continued occupation as trespass against a registered proprietor. The plaintiff suing as legal representative of the deceased licensee therefore had no subsisting interest.
Whether L.R No. 584/111/20 and L.R No. 584/711 are the same parcel
The plaintiff failed to prove that the two parcel numbers refer to the same plot; the survey and lands officers testified they are at different locations.
DW1 (District Surveyor) and DW2 (County Land Administration Officer) both testified the plots occur at different locations. The plaintiff's own witness from the National Land Commission conceded he could not confirm they were the same and that a licensed surveyor's report was needed, which the plaintiff never produced. Applying sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act and Kirugi v Kabiya, the court held the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden of proof on identity of the parcels.
Validity of the defendant's title
The defendant's certificate of title to L.R No. 584/711 is doubtful; mere production of a title is not proof of lawful acquisition.
The National Land Commission legal officer (PW3) testified the file was reconstructed, with critical documents such as the allotment letter and consent to charge missing, and could not rule out tampering. The defendant, a former Ministry of Lands employee, did not produce the charge document, allotment letter, consent to charge, or receipts for land rent or rates. Applying Daudi Kiptugen, the court held the acquisition process must be proved, and found the title doubtful, though this did not save the plaintiff's claim.
Legal principles established
#- A Temporary Occupation Licence is personal to the licensee, creates no assignable interest, and is extinguished upon the death of the licensee; it cannot be inherited or passed by succession.
- Possession of a certificate of title or lease is not sufficient; the holder must demonstrate through evidence that the title was properly acquired, since the process of acquisition is material to the validity of the title.
- The burden of proof lies on the party who alleges, on a balance of probabilities, under sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (Environment and Land Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Eunice Njoki Kiruri (Suing as the legal administrator of the estate of the late Nahashon Gichu Muchembe) v Richard Kipruto Koech [2018] KEELC 3232 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case of 2014 (Londiani), Kericho. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3232/eng@2018-05-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.