Introduction
The Kenya Supreme Court land judgments scheduled for 23 October 2026 delivers four judgments. Three of the four are land matters are of monumental impact to the Land and Property Law in Kenya. The suits from which they descend were filed in 1993, 2002 and 2020, and after decades in the court corridors they are to be concluded tomorrow.
Each began as a quarrel over a particular piece of ground: a golf course in Murang’a, two plots near Bomas of Kenya, and a settlement in Kisumu. Each carries the same question to the apex court, namely, what a certificate of title is worth against a person already in possession, or against a transaction preceding one’s own.
For corporate landholders, lenders, developers, conveyancers and the citizen holding a title deed, three answers arrive at once. We invite you to be on the look out.
Kakuzi PLC v Makuyu Club – What an Owner Must Do to Keep Its Land
Kakuzi PLC v Makuyu Club ascends from Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2020 [2024] KECA 1607 (KLR) (Kairu, Lesiit & Ngenye-Macharia, JJ.A).
Seventy-two acres out of L.R. No. 11674 I.R. 20386/2 were donated to the Club by white settlers in 1934 for a golf course. Kakuzi acquired the larger parcel in 1967 and found the Club upon it. The Club moved the court in 2002 under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Kakuzi’s answer was that it had been generous rather than dispossessed, having supplied diesel, tractors and mowers, paid the course employees’ wages, grazed its cattle and cut hay upon the same ground.
At paragraph 41, the Court of Appeal held that to assert one’s right to land, the act must cause the trespasser to cease possession. Physical entry and ejectment, as does acknowledgment of the owner’s title. A notice to quit does not (Githu v Ndeete [1984] KLR 776), and neither does a letter from the owner’s advocate.
At paragraph 43, Kakuzi’s letter to the Kenya Power and Lighting Company objecting to an electricity connection was held to be merely “a letter passing information to a third party”. The appeal was dismissed. At paragraphs 24 and 25, the Court confirmed that adverse possession is an overriding interest under section 30(f) of the repealed Registered Land Act, running against the title and requiring no entry upon the register.
Ouya & another v Oseko & 4 others – The Search That Disclosed Nothing
Ouya & another v Oseko & 4 others ascends from Civil Appeals Nos. E697 & E715 of 2021 (Consolidated) [2025] KECA 1724 (KLR) (Kiage, Jamila Mohammed & Odunga, JJ.A).
The Osekos agreed orally in 1992 to buy two parcels near Bomas of Kenya, paid Kshs. 380,000, entered possession in March 1993 and gave a bank guarantee for the balance. They sued for specific performance that year. The vendor company later transferred to a third party, who in 2002 sold to the appellants. The appellants searched, paid value and obtained titles; one charged hers to a bank for Kshs. 2.1 million.
At paragraph 56, the Court of Appeal held lis pendens to be “a doctrine of general application”, the parcels having fallen to be preserved until the 1993 suit was determined. At paragraph 60, the appellants were found not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, their titles being “invalid and defeasible”.
The contest for the Supreme Court appears at paragraph 52: whether the bar under section 52 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (repealed) operates automatically, or requires a prohibitory order supported by an injunction.
Kenya Railways Corporation v Fatuma Khamis Bilal & 14 Others: Seven Days’ Notice Against Eighty – Three Years of Occupation
Kenya Railways Corporation v Fatuma Khamis Bilal & 14 Others ascends from Civil Appeal No. E206 of 2021 [2025] KECA 545 (KLR) (Asike-Makhandia, H.A. Omondi & Kimaru, JJ.A).
The respondents are members of the Nubian community settled at Kibos, Kisumu, upon Crown Land L.R. No. 655 since 1937. On 9th March 2020 the Corporation issued a seven-day notice to vacate; demolition followed on 16th March 2020 at 3.00 a.m., during the Covid-19 curfew. The Corporation relied upon Legal Notices No. 440 of 1963 and No. 24 of 1986 vesting the Kibos Railway Station Reserve in it.
At paragraph 39, the Court applied section 152G of the Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 2016: evictees from public land must be notified in writing, by Gazette notice, in a newspaper of nationwide circulation and by radio in a local language, three months before eviction.
Regulation 68 of the Land Regulations confines evictions to between 6.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. The appeal was dismissed with costs. On 30th January 2026 the Supreme Court declined conservatory orders.
WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR TOMORROW
In Kakuzi, should the formulation at paragraph 41 survive, letters, demands and notices to quit remain worthless as interruptions, and tolerated occupation upon corporate estates will continue to ripen quietly. Observe whether the Court carries the section 30(f) reasoning into section 28 of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which decides whether the holding governs titles issued today.
In Ouya, a single sentence disposes of the appeal: whether lis pendens attaches upon filing and runs to judgment. Observe whether a chargee in good faith is distinguished from a purchaser, and whether possession by a stranger is, without more, constructive notice; both fall to be measured against Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others [2023] KESC 30 (KLR).
In Kenya Railways, observe the noun selected for the 1937 arrangement, whether licence, trust or interest in land, for it governs settlements upon parastatal land nationwide, and whether breach of sections 152B to 152G sounds in constitutional damages of itself.
LIKELY IMPLICATIONS
- Audit tolerated occupation. Estates, ranches, co-operative successors, parastatals and institutional landholders routinely permit clubs, schools and settlements upon unused land as a matter of goodwill. Kakuzi documented its generosity meticulously, and that documentation became the evidence against it.
- Inspect before you purchase, and record the inspection. An official search discloses neither adverse possession, which runs against the title, nor a suit filed in 1993. A dated site report naming the occupiers is now the operative step of due diligence.
- Lenders should price litigation history, not merely the search. Where security sits upon a title with occupiers, the charge follows the title. Warranties from the vendor and the vendor’s advocate as to pending proceedings belong in every facility.
- Reduce goodwill to a short written licence. A licence, renewed and acknowledged periodically, preserves the owner’s title at negligible cost, and its absence is ordinarily the whole case.
- Public bodies should treat sections 152B to 152G as a condition precedent. Procedural compliance is not a courtesy preceding a clearance; it is the lawfulness of the clearance itself.
By the close of business tomorrow , The Supreme will affirm whether a certificate of title in Kenya is a conclusion, or merely the beginning of the enquiry.
This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary as set out in the article should be held without seeking specific legal advice on the subject matter. If you have any query regarding the same, please do not hesitate to contact our W&A Litigation Department Litigation@wamaeallen.com.
About the author
Caxstone specializes in civil, employment and labour disputes, constitutional law, family law and succession, and environment and land matters. He has amassed a wealth of knowledge and experience in litigation which is evident in the successes obtained for clients. He is an active member of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Bar-Bench committee.
Denis Mutugi specializes in Commercial Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Denis graduated with a Bachelor of Laws, LLB (Hons) from The University of Nairobi in 2021 and was admitted to the Roll of Advocates of the High Court of Kenya in the year 2023.
Denis has amassed a considerable wealth of experience in conducting legal research on various complex legal matters touching on Commercial, Insurance, Employment and Insolvency law and bankruptcy.
Frankline M. Otieno is a dispute resolution associate, recommended professional and committed to offering sustainable client-centred solutions to legal issues.Frankline is astute in commercial litigation, securities law, banking law, intellectual property litigation, public procurement, land law litigation, Judicial Review and Administrative law litigation, sports law, tax litigation, administrative law, consumer protection law, competition law and constitutional litigation.
