Akello (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Tingo Nyamatiko) v Mucharia (Originating Summons 117 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 1658 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Migori court declared that a woman who occupied and farmed land for over 20 years under a sale agreement now legally owns it, but got no compensation for her sugarcane.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Applicant acquired Bukira/Buhiringira/167 by way of Adverse Possession
- 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the harvested sugarcane
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant acquired 13 acres of Bukira/Buhiringera/167 by adverse possession
Yes - she entered in 2000 under a sale agreement, her possession was actual, open and notorious, and the Respondent never interrupted it; title by adverse possession accrued
The court found the existence of the sale agreement undisputed and that the Respondent conceded the Applicant took possession, alleging only an unproduced lease. Her occupation was continuous, open (she built a house and planted crops), corroborated by PW2-PW4, and no action to interrupt it was filed. Time therefore ran from 2000, exceeding the statutory twelve years.
Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation for the sugarcane
No - the claim, being one in special damages, was not strictly proved
The court applied sections 107, 109 and 112 of the Evidence Act and the balance-of-probabilities standard, reaffirming that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. Despite the claim of sub-contracting to South Nyanza Sugar Company, no evidence established a loss of Kshs. 2,640,000 or 2,500,000 caused by the Respondent's actions, so the compensation claim failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where occupation of land is founded on a sale agreement, limitation begins to run from the date of the agreement
- Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
- The prerequisites of adverse possession are that possession be adverse, actual, open and notorious, without force, exclusive, and continuous and uninterrupted for twelve years
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Applicant has acquired 13 acres out of the parcel of land known as Bukira/Buhiringera/167 by way of adverse possession
- 2.The national surveyor in charge of the Migori County and the Land Registrar in charge of the County or Registry the suit land falls under are ordered to demarcate, at the cost of the Applicant, the said approximately 13 acres or thereabouts and register them in the name of the Applicant, and rectify the register by issuing the applicant with a title deed in her favour
- 3.The Respondent is ordered to execute within thirty (30) days of preparation and presentation instruments of transfer thereof including mutation forms accordingly, in favour of the claimant, upon presentation of the same, in default the Deputy Registrar of this Court to execute the same in that behalf
- 4.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act - application for an order that a person entitled by adverse possession be registered as proprietor
Relief refused
#Compensation of Kshs. 2,640,000.00 (or Kshs. 2,500,000.00) as damages for sugarcane destroyed/blocked from harvest
Special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved; no evidence was tendered of the alleged loss
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Applicant has acquired 13 acres out of the parcel of land known as Bukira/ Buhiringera/167 by way of adverse possession
The national surveyor in charge of the Migori County and the Land Registrar in charge of the County or Registry the suit land falls under are hereby ordered to demarcate, at the cost of the Applicant, the said approximately said approximately 13 acres or thereabouts and register them in the name of the Applicant
The Respondent is ordered to execute within thirty (30) days of preparation and presentation instruments of transfer thereof including mutation forms accordingly, in favour of the claimant
Each party shall bear its own costs.
It is my considered view that the Applicant has proved that she has acquired title to the suit land by way of adverse possession, to the exclusion of the Respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The Originating Summons is stated as dated 10th September 2028, yet it is said to have been filed on 24th September 2018 and the Respondent's replying affidavit was sworn on 20th November 2018 - the 2028 date appears to be a typographical error for 2018
The Applicant is said to have sought indemnity of Kshs. 2,500,000 in her affidavit but the originating summons claims Kshs. 2,640,000; the judgment refers to both figures
The court refers to the parcels inconsistently as Bukira/Buhiringera/167 and Bukira/Buhiringera/610 in the questions for determination and disposition (issue (c) of the summons also refers to parcel 610)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akello (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Tingo Nyamatiko) v Mucharia (Originating Summons 117 of 2018) [2026] KEELC 1658 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1658/eng@2026-03-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.