The buyers had first leased the portion before agreeing to purchase it. Their sale agreement used a parcel number that had already closed following subdivision. The seller relied on problems with the transaction, but the court found that the actual portion remained identifiable.
Gathuna v Gatimu & another [2024] KECA 22 (KLR), Civil Appeal 402 of 2018, was decided by the Court of Appeal on 25 January 2024. It dismissed the seller's appeal and upheld orders designed to complete the sale.
A closed reference did not erase the physical subject
The transaction concerned a 100-by-100-foot portion. The prior lease and later sale formed part of the evidence about what the parties had been dealing with.
The outdated reference created a documentary problem, but the appellate court did not treat it as proof that the land being sold was impossible to identify. It considered the physical portion and the relevant registration history together.
Paragraphs 43–47 record the conclusion that the portion remained sufficiently identifiable for the relief ordered.
That does not mean old parcel numbers can safely be ignored in another transaction. The result depended on establishing the connection, not assuming it. A different file might leave the proposed portion genuinely uncertain.
The seller's own records mattered
The court also considered the payment evidence. The seller's affidavit and correspondence acknowledged receipt of most of the purchase price and that the balance was held by the parties' common advocate.
Those records were material to the argument about whether the buyers had performed or made the necessary completion funds available.
The court did not rely only on the buyers' account of what they had paid. The seller's own documents helped establish the position.
This is a practical reason to read the correspondence alongside the agreement. A later pleading cannot be assessed sensibly without considering earlier acknowledgements of payment and the arrangements made for the balance.
Consent remained part of the ordered process
The trial court ordered excision and transfer of the identified portion. It also extended the time for applying for Land Control Board consent by six months and provided for the Deputy Registrar to sign the necessary documents if the seller failed to complete subdivision and transfer within that extended time.
The Court of Appeal upheld that approach. Paragraph 40 also records that the seller had not proved the land fell within an agricultural area requiring consent; the buyers nevertheless requested an extension in their counterclaim.
It did not decide that consent could be omitted from every similar transaction. The extension was part of the remedy in this litigation, not an assurance that every incomplete consent process will receive the same treatment.
The appellate dismissal also should not be read as silently restarting the trial court's six-month period.
An unpleaded objection did not alter the outcome
The seller also raised a company-seal challenge. The Court of Appeal rejected it as an issue that had not been pleaded.
That was a limit arising from this case's pleadings and course of litigation. It should not be converted into a general statement about the execution requirements for all company contracts.
The important point is that the court examined the transaction actually litigated, the admissions and the relief properly before it.
What the appeal left in place
The seller's appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents, leaving their trial costs award intact. The specific-performance, consent-extension and default-signature provisions remained undisturbed.
This was a substantive outcome requiring steps towards a transfer, not merely permission to resume negotiations. But the judgment is not evidence that subdivision, consent or registration was subsequently completed.
It also does not amount to an award of any additional land beyond the identified portion.
Questions when an agreement uses an old number
- What official records connect the closed title to the current holding?
- Can the purchased portion be identified independently and consistently?
- What do the parties' own acknowledgements say about payment and the balance?
- Which consent, subdivision and execution steps does the actual decree require?
A Kenyan advocate and appropriate survey professional should work through those questions. An outdated reference may be explainable, but the explanation needs evidence rather than reassurance.
Screening can organise the connection, not certify it
ArdhiScore screening only organises available dated evidence, identifiers, citations and questions needing official or professional checks. It cannot conclusively identify a surveyed portion, guarantee completion or deadline protection, certify title, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
This is historical analysis, not legal advice or confirmation of a completed transfer. The retained record reports no later same-dispute decision from earlier scoped searches; no new history search was performed, and further proceedings remain possible.
AI source note — 2026-09-11: Ezra independently read all locally captured paragraphs 1–48 and HTML title metadata, not just writer notes. Original acquisition/source-reader attribution remains CA2024TitleSelection fresh independent reading, 2026-09-11. No new evidence was acquired. The formal judgment header, judicial panel and dated signatures are absent from these captures: full-primary-source acceptance remains held. This is NOT human legal/publication clearance; access/use, privacy and publication acceptance remain separate.
Primary decision
Read the judgment. See paragraphs 2–5 for the portion and old reference, 11–12 for the trial directions, 33–42 for payments and consent, and 43–48 for identification and the appeal order.