Makokha v Githire (Environment and Land Case 143 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 562 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a land company share certificate can prove ownership, awarding the plot holder an injunction and Sh1 million damages against a trespasser.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Evidentiary value of a Share Certificate from a land-buying company
The Share Certificate is not a title deed but demonstrates an interest in the land which the holder is entitled to protect; it established a prima facie case of ownership
The court held that although the Plaintiff only held a Share Certificate dating to 1998 with no title deed issued, the Certificate demonstrates an interest in the land that the holder may protect. Precedent recognizes Share Certificates as evidence of allotment creating equitable interests and as the interim root of title. Since the Plaintiff held the Certificate and the Defendant held nothing, the Plaintiff established a prima facie case of ownership.
Adverse possession claim inconsistent with purchase
The Defendant's adverse possession claim failed because he asserted consensual purchase; adverse possession requires hostile, non-permission-based occupation and only begins on breach or failure of payment, not during a valid ongoing purchase
The court held adverse possession and purchase are legally contradictory: the former requires hostile occupation, the latter consensual possession. Adverse possession may only start after final payment fails or the contract is breached. Here the Defendant averred he paid in full and claimed no frustration in execution, so no limitation period ran and the counterclaim failed.
Defendant's chain of title from Julia Nyakio Kareithi
The Defendant failed to prove any transferable interest; the vendor had no Certificate in her name, no Trust Deed or Letters of Administration, so nemo dat applied
The Defendant claimed to buy Plot No. 5 from Julia Nyakio Kareithi, trustee for a minor and Esther Murugi, yet her name was not on the Share Certificate and no Trust Deed or Letters of Administration were produced. Under the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, she had no bundle of rights to transfer. The inconsistencies in consideration (Kesh 500,000 vs 550,000) and plot number further undermined the claim.
Legal principles established
#- Share Certificates issued by land-buying companies are recognized as evidence of an allotment creating an equitable interest and serve as the root of title in the interim
- A claim of adverse possession and a claim of purchase over the same property are mutually exclusive
- Where two parties have competing equitable interests, the first in time prevails
Court orders
#- 1.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents and/or servants from trespassing, constructing, erecting structures, alienating or dealing with plot number 10 Kamiti Ridge contained in LR No. 7019 (5805/1)
- 2.An order that the Defendant do remove all structures permanent or otherwise on plot number 10 Kamiti Ridge
- 3.General damages for trespass of Kesh 1,000,000 awarded to the Plaintiff
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute concerning plot number 10 Kamiti Ridge contained in LR No. 7019 (5805/1)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Makokha v Githire (Environment and Land Case 143 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 562 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case of 2022 (Plaint dated 18/11/2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/562/eng@2026-02-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.