Jared Kibet

Law & Politics

Mosop Gaa 📍

[Hussein Mohamed, MBS. @HusseinMohamedg]

President Ruto on Mashujaa Day:

“No Government programme is above criticism. No leader is beyond accountability. We should debate the merits of competing proposals, question their costs and demand results. But let our disagreements produce better policies, not deeper divisions. No one should seek power without accepting accountability. No one should seek leadership without responsibility.”

[Council of Legal Ed. @CLE_Kenya]

CLE congratulates all the candidates gazetted in October 2026. CLE gazettes candidates quarterly, in line with the established gazettement timelines.

ATP Candidates are encouraged to observe the applicable deadlines for submission of their particulars.

✅ 1st Quarter (July – September 2026) – gazettement done in October 2026

✅ 2nd Quarter (October – December 2026) – gazettement will be done in January 2027

✅ 3rd Quarter (January – March 2027) - gazettement will be done in April 2027

✅ 4th Quarter (April – June 2027)- gazettement will be done in July 2027

Congratulations to all the gazetted candidates!

For information on Admission to the Bar, visit: https://t.co/e9VW84MSZg

#CLE #GazettedCandidates #LegalProfession

[Ekaterina M. Handa @EkaterinaHanda]

Kanziwa Limited vs Kandie & another KECA 2080_ answers two questions that have troubled Kenyan land law for 20 years in the affirmative.

1. Can a purchaser in possession under an incomplete sale acquire land by adverse possession?

2. Can his administrators enforce it after death?

Answer: YES.

Court of Appeal Nakuru, 2 Oct 2026, dismissed Kanziwa's appeal and gave 50.18 Ha of LR No.9726 Njoro to administrators of Aaron Kimosop Kandie by adverse possession.

BACKGROUND:
1982 purchase from Kanziwa director, LCB application signed by both parties, consent obtained, 1983 vendor letter confirming sale. Purchaser built, fenced, farmed 1982-2002 (20yrs). Family remained. 2004 owner denied sale, subdivided and advertised. Family filed OS 2007. HC Mulwa J 2020 allowed claim. CA affirmed.

FINDINGS:
Wambugu v Njuguna KLR 172 overtaken by Kasuve 1 KLR 184, Gabriel Mbui, Miki Waweru & Ouko v Kageni CA 38 of 2019. Where sale stalls through no fault of purchaser, time runs. 12yrs under S.7,17,38 Limitation of Actions Act.
Alternative pleading allowed. Interruption only by suit or effective re-entry or clear admission - Githu v Ndete, Kimani Ruchine.
Adverts and paper subdivision not enough.
Missing abstract curable under Order 37 Rule 7, Mukisa Biscuit. S.3(3) Law of Contract Act proviso saves oral sale by part performance.

NOTES FOR ADVOCATES:
Plead contract and adverse possession in alternative, cite Ouko v Kageni. Where no agreement, collect LCB Form 1 signed by both, LCB consent, vendor letter. Prove animus by fencing, buildings, trees, graves, control, not daily presence. To defeat, file recovery suit within 12yrs or physically retake with police and inventory

NOTES FOR ADVOCATES:

This case settles 20-year conflict: Purchaser in possession under incomplete sale CAN claim adverse possession.

1. Plead in alternative. Always plead contract of sale + adverse possession in alternative under Order 37. Cite Ouko v Kageni CA 38 of 2019 KECA 60 to overcome Wambugu v Njuguna KLR 172.

2. Save oral sale with part performance. No written agreement? Use proviso to S.3(3) Law of Contract Act. Collect LCB Form 1 signed by BOTH, LCB consent letter, Commissioner approval, vendor letter asking for survey/valuation. See Mwangi v Mwangi KLR 328, Yafesi Ochieng.

3. Prove animus correctly. Don't argue client slept there daily. Lead evidence of fencing, permanent buildings, graves, trees, crops, control of entry. See Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala.

4. To defeat claim, act decisively. Letters, adverts, paper subdivisions do NOT stop time. Per Githu v Ndete KLR 776 & Kimani Ruchine, only suit filed or effective physical re-entry with police, inventory, witnesses, or clear admission stops time.

5. Deceased possessor. Ensure 12yrs accrued before death. Obtain Grant of Letters of Administration first, sue under S.82 Law of Succession Act. Cite Ouko v Kageni & Mbui Mukangu v Gerald Mutwiri.

6. Avoid technical traps. Always annex title/search, even if curable under Order 37 Rule 7 per Mukisa Biscuit EA 696. Raise parcel identity dispute at trial, not on appeal.

WHAT PUBLIC SHOULD NOTE:
Buying and entering land without title can make you owner after 12yrs if seller refuses to transfer.
Keep all LCB forms and seller letters.
Your estate can continue case. Show ownership by building, fencing, farming.
If you are owner, don't delay, sue within 12yrs or retake lawfully.

Citation: Kanziwa Limited v Kandie & another, CA E111/2022, KECA 2080, CA Nakuru 2 Oct 2026.

Ekaterina Handa
Partner
Gitonga, Kinyanjui & Co. Advocates

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

@Ndonglaw043 Hats off brother 💪
No human is limited!

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

@Ndonglaw043 😂😂

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

The Bar has called.
@No. 19 is yours truly.

[Mwalimu Reuben Kigame, PhD @ReubenKigame]

Linda Nwananchi has the euphoria of fed up citizens, the money, the tribal kingpin but it has no agenda for Kenya as yet. It is all about Baba said this and said that, Ruto this and that. This is not enough to give us a new Kenya.#NewKenya #DrainTheSwamp #CharacterMatters #RutoMustGo #WanTam

[Jakochia Esq @Esq_Dalmas_J]

Wakili, ever since you made the decision to practice solo and shun employment, how has it been?

Do you get briefs?

What's your income in a month?

Do you go to bed on empty belly sometimes?

If you had a second chance, would you take the same path again?

These are some of the questions I get everyday from colleagues in employment, juniors at KSL and LLB and some Seniors in the profession.

Let me say this initokee and to conclusively put to rest these questions.

Firstly, I appreciate the overwhelming concerning and care you have for me.

It's a testament that there's still hope in humanity in an era where it's everybody for themselves, God for us all.

Thank you!

Secondly, registering my own firm and practicing solo fresh from Admission was the best decision I ever made. Why?

Because I'm building something for myself, my children and my children's children.

Because I can exercise freedom and independence as I wish.

Because I work based on my own schedule.

Because I have to go hard lest I fail.

As a being, it's important you've something for yourself and start building it from scratch and by the sweat of your brow.

This is what I wanted and it did not matter how I would get there.

Initially, I was afraid of rolling up my sleeves and starting this, I tried seeking employment sometimes in December last year.

After I had been unsuccessful, I asked myself how hard could it be?

I mean I went to Maranda, never got a supplementary in LLB and passed ATP in 1st attempt, how hard can this thing be?

After being confronted by these questions, I opted to register OYUGI DO LAW ADVOCATES and I've never looked back.

Seven (7) months down the line, I can pay my rent, afford 'cabbage' everyday, buy clothes, go out and drink Fanta and send a few coins to my mother Atieno daughter of Kisumo.

Listen, it's not been easy but I have to do it everyday. I don't enjoy security of salary after every 30days so I must do it!

I've a few clients about five or so but I'm very grateful that they're good beings.

They pay! They constantly check up on me and ask how they can help if there's a problem. Great beings these ones!

I have no iota of regret doing this. In fact, I would do it again. It's what I love.

5 years from now, Oyugi DO Law Advocates, would not be the same as it is now. I promise that.

I want to be a testament that you can be straight from Admission, register your firm and succeed. I know I'm not the only one on this.

We're a number and I'm sure beyond peradventure that if we exude determination, we shall sail through.

Just hang on in there! It shall get better and it will.

Is it not the Iron lady Margaret Ogolla who rightly observed in her notorious book The River and The Source that:

"Yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow. Each day rises fresh from the hands of Were, God of the eye of the rising sun bringing with it whatever it shall."

So if you were good yesterday, press hard so that you're better today and press harder so that you're best tomorrow!

You're one step away from your breakthrough!

Start now. I'll be glad to help where I can.

Anyway, email us at [email protected] for legal assistance!

Best regards!

[Daniel Murkomen @MurkomenDaniel]

The lesson from Ol Kalou is that public sentiment cannot always be overcome by power or resources. It should serve as a wake-up call for every political actor that the will of the people remains the ultimate determinant of democratic outcomes.

[Ndong@Conslaw @Ndonglaw043]

The Supreme Court Admits Katiba as an Amicus in the Coalition Violence Against Women Appeal to the Supreme Court against the Decision of Musinga, JA, Odunga JA & Tuiyott JA

Their participation will be limited to the Written Brief, no Oral Submissions to be made.

https://t.co/VHsFmWIJ91

[Ndong@Conslaw @Ndonglaw043]

He Supreme Court settles the Law on Forfeiture under ACECA & POCAMLA distinctively. Take a read at the Pamela Aboo Decision in Full as attached Below. Delivered this Morning by the Apex Court:

https://t.co/zDwHgfGA77

[Michelle Aseka @AsekaMicheleLLB]

4 months anniversary with 9Ps💅 Infact ju ya io story leo mko?😔

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

@to_nyR Had 03💔

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

My appreciation to the following @OchiengTitanium, @Adrianlaw254, @KenzoDickens and @billienyakawa for their guidance as I walked this path��

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

Bagged 9Ps 💪💪
Thanks to the Almighty and my supportive friends🙏🙏
@Ndonglaw043
@_ngaowilson

[Jared Kibet @JaredKibet10]

Bagged 9Ps 💪💪
Thanks to the Almighty and my supportive friends🙏🙏
@Ndonglaw043
@_ngaowilson

[ROBA & ASSOCIATES LLP @AssociatesRoba]

#hotoffthebench: Adverse Possession Explained: Time Alone Does Not Transfer Land

The Environment and Land Court in Rutto v Ongiro (OS E009 of 2024) has shut down a very common belief: that long occupation automatically turns into ownership. In this case, the Applicant had lived on 0.40 hectares of land in Transmara since 2009. He built houses, farmed the land, called witnesses including the area chief, and went to court seeking ownership by adverse possession. The registered owner never appeared in court. Still, the claim failed. Why? Because the Applicant could not prove that the registered owner knew he was on the land, or that the occupation was hostile to the owner’s title in law.

Here is the bomb the court dropped. Adverse possession is not just about years on the land. The law requires occupation that is open, continuous, exclusive, and crucially, with the knowledge of the registered owner. The court found fatal contradictions. The Applicant pleaded that the owner had refused to transfer the land despite repeated requests, but testified that he had never met the owner and did not even know if he was alive. That inconsistency killed the case. Worse still, documents like photographs, searches, and survey reports were never formally produced as evidence. Even in an undefended case, the court reminded Kenyans that proof is not optional.

The implication is massive at the grassroots. If you are living on land, farming it, or building on it quietly while the owner is completely unaware, time alone will not save you. Adverse possession is not about hiding. It is about occupation so open and notorious that the owner either knows or ought to know and does nothing. This judgment will unsettle many long-term occupiers, but it also brings clarity. If you want the law to protect you, your occupation must be legally hostile, provable, and consistent. Silence, assumptions, and paperwork shortcuts will cost you land. @Thuranira_1 @NelsonHavi @georgediano @ahmednasirlaw

#TheTourismPlan The Origin Of Wonder #MainaAndKingangi Jirongo Bondi Beach Australian Government John Cena Finland Mossad Christmas

[Julians Amboko @AmbokoJH]

This High Court judgement (Commissioner of Domestic Taxes vs Dinesh Construction Ltd, E220/2024) is extremely consequential for tax payers on two critical accounts:

1. For those taxpayers grappling with the missing trader headache on matters VAT, the High Court has set aside the Tax Appeals Tribunal's judgement & clarified that the burden of the taxpayer goes beyond raising the invoice.

The High Court reiterates that should the Revenue Authority's audit raise doubts, the burden of showing a competent & actual supplier rests with the taxpayer & not the Revenue Authority.

The High Court argues that the right to apply Sec17 (on deduction of input tax) of the VAT Act is premised on the existence of a valid supply

Essentially, a taxpayer can & will be held liable for the supplier's non-compliance & the due diligence burden effectively lies with you as the taxpayer.

I see an unnecessarily huge tax administration burden being transferred to taxpayers here, it will be chaotic.

2. The Court has again thrown out the Tax Appeal Tribunal's position on variances between bank deposits & income declared.

KRA's audit revealed unexplained deposits in Dinesh Construction Ltd's bank account to the tune of Kes 157.0M in 2018 & Kes 29.0M in 2019.

The Court holds that:

"He who asserts must prove & if a taxpayer claims that a deposit to their bank account was loan proceeds, they must produce an accompanying loan agreement. Bank deposits are prima facie income unless otherwise explained"

[Ndong@Conslaw @Ndonglaw043]

When an employee is employed on permanent and pensionable terms, does it mean there is legitimate expectation to have the contract on for the natural period of life, and that termination in public interest is therefore unforeseeable-SUPREME COURT ANSWERS AS FOLLOWS!
i) The designation of employment as “permanent and pensionable” does
not guarantee tenure until retirement age. Such contracts remain
terminable, subject to the law and terms of service.
ii) Retirement in public interest constitutes a form of involuntary
termination of employment. The employer bears the burden of proving
that it is not in the public interest to retain the employee and must ensure
compliance with due process.
iii) Claims for anticipatory salaries or future salary earnings lack a statutory
foundation under both the repealed Employment Act (Cap 226) and the
current Employment Act, 2007.
iv) The general measure of damages does not extend to salaries for the
unexpired period to retirement age. Remedies are generally confined to
notice pay, payment in lieu of notice, and contractual terminal benefits.
v) Awards of arrears of salary and benefits may be made in exceptional cases
where the termination is declared unlawful and a nullity, effectively
treating the employee as if still in service.
vi) An employee has a duty to mitigate any loss that may arise from unlawful
termination of employment.

[Joshua Malidzo Nyawa @joshuamalidzo]

Born to read beautiful openings and judgments?
Demystifying the myth that court decisions are all about legalese?
Justice Andrew Becroft
pens a letter to a child to express the court's decision and not the ordinary legalistic court judgments.
🤩