Njomo & 2 others v Kamau & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 202 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Murang'a court gave a family ownership of 1½ acres they had openly farmed and lived on since 1991, rejecting the 'mere caretaker' defence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Caretaker defence - whether Maina Kamau was a mere caretaker whose occupation was permissive
No evidence that Maina Kamau was a caretaker of the land; he was given land by Kamau Karengeri for taking care of him, and any permission terminated on Kamau Karengeri's death.
The Applicants' witness statement showed Maina Kamau was welcomed to look after his uncle's cows, sheep and to farm, and that Kamau Karengeri subdivided the land between him and Kamwaro Mbirwa. He was a nephew, not a stranger, and was buried on the land without objection in 2012. If Kamau Karengeri died in 1967 as suggested, any subsequent occupation was without permission, satisfying the non-permissive element of adverse possession.
Whether the Applicants proved adverse possession for over 12 years
Yes - uncontroverted evidence of occupation of 1½ acres since 1991, open occupation with houses, crops and burials, meeting all ingredients of the doctrine.
The Applicants occupied 1½ acres from 1991, 27 years before the Respondents' registration in 2018. Their occupation was open - they buried their patriarch on the land - and the Respondents filed no evidence to controvert it. The notice to vacate of 9-3-2018 did not defeat a claim that had already accrued. The court found the Applicants entitled under sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Entitlement to the land through another lawfully recognized method - customary trust
Kamau Karengeri's settling of Kamau Maina on the land created a trust recognized under section 28(b) of the Land Registration Act and section 30(g) of the repealed Registered Land Act as an overriding interest.
The court relied on the Supreme Court's holding in Isack M'Inganga Kieba v Isaya Theuri M'Lintari that trusts override the register. The detailed relationship between Kamau Karengeri and Kamau Maina, and the latter's role in caring for the former in his old age, established a customary trust over the land occupied by the family.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant seeking title by adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse use for the statutory period without interruption.
- Trusts, including customary trusts, are overriding interests that bind the register without being noted on it.
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Applicants have acquired 1½ acres of L.R. Loc. 13/Gitugi/1358 by adverse possession
- 2.The 1½ acres of what used to be Loc. 13/Gitugi/1358 occupied by the Applicants to be carved out and registered in the names of the Applicants
- 3.Any registration of a person as owner of the said 1½ acres to be cancelled in so far as it covers the land occupied by the Applicants
- 4.Costs of the suit to the Applicants (prayer 5 allowed)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (adverse possession claim before the Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njomo & 2 others v Kamau & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 202 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 11-3-2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/202/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.