Mufoyongo & another v Shivachi & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 96 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3800 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a family land claim because the claimants proved neither 12 years of open possession nor a valid case against a deceased owner's estate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the First and Second Defendants had locus standi
The case against them was null and void as they are not personal representatives of the deceased registered proprietors
The registered proprietors of Isukha/Shirere/1XX6, Elijah Kwame and Jeremiah Shivachi, are deceased. The Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved that the defendants were administrators or personal representatives, and the defendants denied being so. Following Trouistik Union and Rugiri, a suit concerning a deceased's estate without a grant is null and void for want of locus standi.
Whether adverse possession was established over Isukha/Shirere/1XX6
Not established; the Plaintiffs admitted they were not in occupation
The First Plaintiff testified he was born, brought up and resides at Muhonje, was not in occupation of the parcel, and did not know when the defendants' family began using it. Possession is a key ingredient and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the date, nature and openness of possession for 12 years.
Whether adverse possession lies against the Fourth Defendant over Isukha/Shirere/1XX4
No; the parcel is public land vested in the county government
The register shows Kakamega County Council, predecessor of the Fourth Defendant, as registered proprietor. Under Article 176 the Fourth Defendant is a county government, and under Article 62 the parcel is public land, which Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act shields from adverse possession.
Legal principles established
#- A suit relating to a deceased's estate filed without a grant of representation is null and void for want of locus standi
- Public land is precluded from acquisition by adverse possession under Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act
- An adverse possession claimant must prove the date, nature and openness of possession for the statutory 12 years
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' case is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs in view of the family relationship between the parties
- 3.No order on costs in respect of the earlier dismissal of the case against the Third Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (transferred from the subordinate court and consolidated)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mufoyongo & another v Shivachi & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 96 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 3800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kakamega MC E&L No. 987 of 2018 (consolidated with Kakamega MC E&L No. 988 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3800/eng@2025-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.