Douglas Kariuki Macharia & 2 others v James Macharia Kariuki & another [2020] KEELC 492 (KLR)

The Plaintiffs relied on Land Control Board consents from 1981, 1983 and 2011, but the parcels cited in the earlier consents were different, and the 2011 consent in respect of parcel 2085 was not executed and in any event was not an agreement for sale. A sale of land must be in writing and executed in the presence of a witness. The Court therefore found no agreement anchoring the claimed purchase.

The 3rd Plaintiff gave no corroborating evidence of occupation such as photographs, a coffee-growing licence or coffee delivery notes, and admitted living on another parcel in the same locality. The 2nd Defendant and his witnesses denied the Plaintiffs ever occupied the land, and the 2nd Defendant's 2016 eviction suit against Hiram suggested he had invaded only then and left after the case was filed. The Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving peaceful, exclusive and unbroken occupation, which they did not discharge.

Following the Court of Appeal in Peter Njau Kairu v Stephen Ndung'u Njenga, the Court applied the principle that because adverse possession divests a registered owner of title, the claimant's evidence must be stringent and straightforward, and such deprivation is warranted only in the clearest of cases. On the facts the Plaintiffs did not meet this exacting standard.