Kamenju v Irungu (Suing in the capacity as the legal representative of the Estate of Humphrey Irungu Mwangi) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4431 (KLR)

The Applicant's assertion of possession was contradicted by three convincing witnesses for the Respondent, who testified that other persons cultivate the land and that the Applicant has never been to it. The Applicant produced no witness to corroborate occupation, and as the party asserting adverse possession he bore the burden of proof, which he did not discharge.

The court held it was the deceased with whom the Applicant had privity of contract, so it was proper to sue the estate. Citing Githu v Ndeete, the court applied the settled principle that a change of registered ownership does not reset the limitation clock; the new owner takes subject to rights that may have accrued to an adverse possessor.

The Applicant's consistent evidence of paying Kshs. 420,000/= was corroborated by the Equity Bank statement showing a Kshs. 200,000/= transfer on 12-3-2007 and by the Respondent's own admissions, including the record of proceedings before the Land Registrar confirming receipt of Kshs. 150,000/= and Kshs. 70,000/=. The Respondent's shifting figures showed she was not truthful about the amount received.

Having failed to prove the continuous twelve-year occupation prerequisite to title by adverse possession, the Applicant could not obtain registration of the suit land. However, since money paid in a controlled transaction that became void is recoverable as a debt under Section 7 of the Land Control Act, the court ordered a refund of all sums paid with interest.