Sankei v Gwako & 26 others (Environment and Land Case 78 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court evicted buyers who occupied land for 33 years under a void sale, ruling their possession was permissive, not adverse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Fate of the sale agreement dated 18th September 1987
The agreement became null and void by operation of law for want of Land Control Board consent within six months, pursuant to Sections 6 and 8(1) of the Land Control Act, and cannot be enforced
The suit land was agricultural land requiring Land Control Board consent for the subdivision and transfer. No consent was obtained, so the transaction was voided by operation of law after six months under Section 8(1) of the Land Control Act. A void agreement cannot be enforced by either party, but Section 7 of the Act preserves a refund remedy recoverable as a debt.
Whether the Defendants acquired 400 acres by adverse possession
The adverse possession claim failed because the Defendants' entry and occupation was permissive, founded on the sale agreement
Adverse possession under Sections 7, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act requires occupation that is open, without force, secrecy, licence or permission (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario). The Defendants entered and remained on the land under the 1987 sale agreement with the Plaintiff's permission, and failed to prove the requisite non-consensual possession, so their claim for adverse possession and registration failed.
Whether the Defendants are entitled to a refund of the purchase price
The refund of Ksh.2,160,000/- with interest at court rates was allowed as the alternative statutory remedy under Section 7 of the Land Control Act
Although the transaction was void under the Land Control Act, Section 7 provides that money paid under such a void transaction is recoverable as a debt. The Defendants had pleaded this remedy in the alternative, and the court granted the refund of the full purchase price with interest from the date of the sale agreement until payment in full.
Legal principles established
#- Where no Land Control Board consent is obtained within six months, the sale agreement becomes null and void and unenforceable, but the purchaser may recover the purchase price as a debt under Section 7 of the Land Control Act
- Possession obtained under a sale agreement is permissive and cannot found a claim for adverse possession
Court orders
#- 1.An eviction order to remove all the Defendants, their agents, their servants, their families, their structures, their buildings and all other belongings from the portion they occupy on Narok/CIS-Mara/lemek/138
- 2.A permanent order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and family members from entering, remaining into, using, dealing with or interfering with the Plaintiff's parcel of land known as Narok/CIS-Mara/lemek/138
- 3.Costs to be borne by the Defendants
- 4.An order directing the Plaintiff to refund the sum of Ksh.2,160,000/- within 60 days together with interest at court rates from the date of the signing of the sale agreement dated 18th September 1987 until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction (land dispute); no specific constitutional/statutory jurisdictional provision stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sankei v Gwako & 26 others (Environment and Land Case 78 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5317/eng@2025-04-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.