Cheruiyot (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur arap Milgo) v Kirui & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 8A of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8333 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court handed a deceased man's family two acres of land his father had openly farmed for over 12 years.
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 Plaintiff has acquired a two-acre portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kapsoit/437 by way of adverse possession
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought in the Originating Summons
- 3.Who should bear costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff (through his deceased father) acquired a two-acre portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kapsoit/437 by adverse possession
Yes. Possession from 1975 (when the registered proprietor was registered) to 2000 exceeds the statutory 12-year period and was exclusive, open and without interruption.
The court held that although the father occupied from 1960, adverse possession does not run against unregistered land, so time was computed only from 1975 when Kipkurui Arap Chepkwony was registered as proprietor. Between 1975 and the father's death in 2000, about twenty-five years elapsed, well beyond the 12-year requirement. The Defendants did not dispute the initial occupation, and their allegations of intermeddling from 2001 were unsupported by any evidence and remained mere allegations.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought in the Originating Summons
Yes, having proved adverse possession, the Plaintiff is entitled to the orders sought, including declaration and compelled execution of transfer documents.
The court reasoned that once it found in favour of the Plaintiff on adverse possession, it followed that he was entitled to the reliefs claimed: a declaration of entitlement to the two acres, excision, and execution of transfer documents by the Defendants, with the Deputy Registrar executing in default.
Whether the Defendants' claim of intermeddling with the estate of a deceased person was established
No. No evidence was produced to support the allegations of intermeddling.
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff destroyed the boundary in 2001, planted tea and built structures, amounting to intermeddling under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The court found these assertions unsupported by any evidence, leaving them as mere allegations, and noted the Plaintiff's point that any intermeddling issues could be raised in the pending succession cause.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of adverse possession cannot accrue against land that is unregistered; time runs only from registration
Court orders
#- 1.The estate of the late Kitur Arap Milgo is declared to have acquired a two-acre portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kapsoit/437 by way of adverse possession
- 2.The Defendants are directed to execute, within 90 days of the date of delivery of the judgment, all the necessary documents for purposes of the subdivision, transfer and registration of the two-acre portion of land comprised in the land known as Kericho/Kapsoit/437 in the Plaintiff's name
- 3.In default, the Deputy Registrar of the Court shall execute the said documents
- 4.The Plaintiff shall have costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 17, 18, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Order 37 Rule 7 & 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 estate of the late Kitur Arap Milgo is hereby declared to have acquired a two-acre portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kapsoit/437 by way of adverse possession.
The Defendants are hereby directed to execute, within 90 days of the date of delivery of this judgment, all the necessary documents for purposes of the subdivision, transfer and registration of the two-acre portion of land comprised in the land known as Kericho/ Kapsoit/437 in the Plaintifi's name.
Therefore, the period between 1960 to 1975 is excluded when computing time. This means that the Plaintifi cannot claim adverse possession between the years 1960 to 1975.
It is important to note that no evidence in support of the assertions of intermeddling have been produced and therefore the said assertions remain to be mere allegations.
In order to be entitled to land by Adverse Possession, the claimant must prove that he has been in exclusive possession of the land openly and as of right without interruption for a period of 12 years either after dispossessing the owner or by discontinuation of possession by the owner on his own volition
Issues in the judgment
#The Defendants' pleading states the deceased father died in 1996, while the Defendants' submissions give the death date as 9th March 1996 - consistent internally, but the Certificate of Death names 'Musa Kipkurui Arap Chepkwony' while other documents name 'Kipkurui Arap Chepkwony'
The court found the Plaintiff was in occupation from before 2000, while the Defendants alleged interference beginning in 2001; the Plaintiff's supplementary affidavit denies interfering 'in the year 2001' whereas the Replying Affidavit alleges 2000
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheruiyot (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Kitur arap Milgo) v Kirui & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 8A of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 14th July, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8333/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.