China Jiangsu International Economic-Technical Cooperation Corporation East African Company v China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Co-operation Corporation Limited; National Land Commission (Proposed Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E011 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 12 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed an adverse possession winner could get land transferred even when the defaulting owner refuses to cooperate, rejecting the National Land Commission's late attempt to intervene.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether leave should be granted to the firm of Koceyo & Company Advocates to come on record for the Interested Party/Applicant
- 2.Whether the Applicant should be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party
- 3.Whether the Judgement delivered on the 3rd July, 2025 should be reviewed
- 4.Whether the Deputy Registrar should be authorized to execute all the necessary documents as may be required to effect the transfer and registration of land reference number 3734/428 in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to the judgement dated 3rd July, 2025
Key legal issues
#Joinder of an Interested Party after judgment
The National Land Commission did not meet the criteria for joinder because the suit land is registered in the name of the Defendant and the Applicant would not be affected by the judgment.
The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the definition of an interested party as a person with a recognizable stake who will be affected by the decision. The Plaintiff had produced a Certificate of Title indicating the land belongs to the Defendant as a private entity, and the Applicant failed to tender documentation proving the land was public. Joinder was therefore unnecessary.
Review or setting aside of judgment on the ground that the suit land is public land
The application for review failed; the arguments attacking the judgment are suitable for an appeal, not a review.
The court noted the Plaintiff produced a Certificate of Title in the name of the Defendant, which was not disputed as the Defendant did not enter appearance despite due service. The title showed private land, and the Applicant produced no documentation showing the land was public. Adverse possession applies regardless of whether title is freehold or leasehold, and no error apparent on the face of the record or new material was demonstrated.
Leave for a new advocate to come on record post-judgment
Leave was granted since Order 9 Rule 9 requires a court order and the Plaintiff showed no prejudice.
Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that a change of advocate after judgment shall not be effected without an order of the court. The court found this a legal requirement and, noting the Plaintiff had not demonstrated any prejudice, allowed the prayer for Koceyo & Company Advocates to come on record.
Execution of transfer documents where there is no cooperating transferor
The Deputy Registrar was authorized to execute the necessary documents to effect the transfer and registration of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff.
Judgment had been entered in favour of the Plaintiff on 3rd July 2025 and a Decree issued on 9th July 2025, but there was no party available to execute the transfer documents since the Defendant never entered appearance. The court found it just and necessary to authorize the Deputy Registrar to execute the requisite forms pursuant to the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- An interested party is one who has a recognizable stake in the proceedings and will be affected by the decision of the Court.
- In a claim for adverse possession, the possessor must demonstrate that the land belonged to an owner with title, whether freehold or leasehold.
- The discretion to set aside judgment is exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake, not to assist a party who deliberately obstructed the course of justice.
- Change of advocate or a party deciding to act in person after judgment requires an order of the court under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of Koceyo & Company Advocates to come on record for the Interested Party/Applicant
- 2.Application for joinder of the Proposed Interested Party declined
- 3.Application for review, variation or setting aside of the judgment delivered on 3rd July 2025 dismissed
- 4.Deputy Registrar of the Court authorized to execute all necessary documents to effect transfer and registration of land reference number 3734/428 in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to the judgment dated 3rd July 2025
- 5.Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025 allowed in its entirety
- 6.Proposed Interested Party's Notice of Motion dated 5th September 2025 disallowed save for prayer No. 2
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; Civil Procedure Rules (Order 9 Rule 9, Order 1 Rule 10(2)) and review jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Joinder of the National Land Commission as Interested Party
Suit land is registered in the name of the Defendant per the Certificate of Title and the Applicant's involvement is neither necessary nor will it be affected by the judgment
Review, variation or setting aside of the judgment of 3rd July 2025
No error apparent on the face of the record nor discovery of new material; arguments on whether the land was public or leasehold are matters for appeal
Costs
Costs of the Plaintiff's application provided for (prayer 3 of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion allowed); no express costs order recorded in the final orders in respect of the Proposed Interested Party's application.
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.
In the foregoing, I will authorize the Deputy Registrar of this Court to execute all the necessary documents as may be required to effect the transfer and registration of land reference number 3734/428 in favour of the Plaintiff pursuant to the judgement dated 3rd July, 2025.
I find the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated the 24th July, 2025 merited and will allow it. I however find the Proposed Interested Party's Notice of Motion application dated the 5th September, 2025 unmerited save for prayer No. 2 and will disallow it.
I find that the Applicant does not meet the criteria for joinder as suit land is registered in the name of the Defendant as per the Certificate of Title which was produced as an exhibit.
It is trite that in a claim for adverse possession, the possessor has to demonstrate that the said land belonged to the owner that had a title and this is irrespective of whether the title was a freehold or leasehold.
It is my considered view that the arguments proffered against this Court's judgement are suitable for an Appeal and not an application for review.
This discretion is intended to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist a person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise, to obstruct or delay the course of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the Defendant or the Proposed Interested Party by name in the caption; the Proposed Interested Party is identified only as 'the Commission' and by description as a government Commission mandated to handle public land (inferably the National Land Commission).
The judgment's costs order is not expressly stated in the final disposition; costs were only sought in the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and the disposition does not record an express costs award.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "China Jiangsu International Economic-Technical Cooperation Corporation East African Company v China Jiangsu International Economic Technical Co-operation Corporation Limited; National Land Commission (Proposed Interested Party) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E011 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 12 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 9th January 2024; Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025 and Notice of Motion dated 5th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/12/eng@2026-01-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.