An earlier purchaser claimed 200 acres. The estate's administrator and beneficiaries later sold the larger parcel. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether that later transaction could defeat the earlier purchaser's proved payment, possession and equitable interest.
Diasproperty Limited & 5 others v Githae & 10 others [2024] KECA 318 (KLR), consolidated Civil Appeals E155 and E157 of 2023, was decided by the Court of Appeal on 22 March 2024.
Both appeals were dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The estate's transaction was not the beginning of the history
The dispute concerned a 1986 purchase of 200 acres within a 264-acre property in Laikipia, followed by the estate's sale of the entire parcel in 2011 (2024 judgment, paragraphs 12–15).
The Court of Appeal found full payment and possession by the earlier purchaser established. It also found that the later purchasers knew of that possession.
Those findings were central to the result. The later transaction could not be assessed as if there had been no prior dealings affecting part of the land.
An estate sale needs to be read against the deceased's earlier transactions and existing interests, not only the authority described in the succession documents.
The later purchasers had not completed registration
A caveat prevented registration of their transfer. The court expressly found that they had not acquired registered title.
That fact limits how the result should be reported. The decision was not cancellation of a completed registered title held by those later purchasers.
Instead, the court examined their claimed position and notice of the earlier purchaser's occupation, together with the equitable interest established by the evidence.
A sale agreement, an attempted transfer and completed registration are different stages. They should not be collapsed into one description of ownership.
The constructive trust rested on proved facts
The Court of Appeal upheld the constructive trust over the disputed 200 acres and rejected the later purchasers' innocent-purchaser argument.
It relied on payment, possession, conduct and notice. The outcome was not based on a bare assertion that an earlier purchaser existed.
Nor does the judgment provide a blanket dispensation from consent requirements for every incomplete land sale. Its treatment of the equitable interest was tied to the particular facts and transactions before it.
Both sets of appellants disputed possession: paragraphs 19–20 record their counsel's submissions. Paragraph 21 records the court's contrary finding, based on corroborating evidence.
Ownership and succession had connected but different tasks
The court upheld the ELC's determination of the disputed ownership. The succession court was to address the grant in light of that determination.
The Supreme Court's later account records trial directions to cancel the assent vesting the land in the administrator and beneficiaries, surrender the original grant for cancellation of the relevant entry, and subdivide at the earlier purchaser's expense to process his 200-acre title (2025 judgment, paragraph 16). These were directions, not proof of completed registration.
The distinction matters where a confirmed grant is presented as if it automatically resolves a dispute about an earlier sale. The property interest in question must still be identified and adjudicated through the appropriate process.
The Court of Appeal upheld taking the ownership determination to the succession court in an application for revocation; it did not itself redistribute the estate (paragraphs 39–43).
The Supreme Court did not retry the trust claim
In Diasproperty Ltd & another v Githae & 8 others [2025] KESC 19 (KLR), Petition E019 of 2024, the Supreme Court delivered judgment on 11 April 2025.
It upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the petition for want of jurisdiction. Paragraph 53 ordered the appellants to bear the first respondent's costs and directed refund of their KSh 6,000 security deposit.
Those were jurisdictional orders, not a fresh merits decision on the trust. The court held that the factual dispute did not meet the constitutional-appeal threshold (paragraphs 47–51).
The later judgment also does not establish that the succession or registration steps were completed.
Questions before purchasing from an estate
- What earlier sales or equitable interests affect the land proposed for sale?
- Who is in occupation, and what explains that occupation?
- Is the purchaser merely under contract, awaiting transfer or already registered?
- What has the ownership court decided, and what remains for the succession court?
A Kenyan advocate should examine the transaction history, occupation evidence and relevant orders together. A grant and an estate sale cannot be assumed to erase a pre-existing interest proved in court.
Review screening scope alongside these questions
Before considering ArdhiScore screening, review its stated sources, scope and limitations. Screening cannot establish a trust, guarantee discovery of every prior transaction, certify title or boundaries, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
This is historical analysis, not legal advice or present ownership information. No exhaustive later history, completed succession implementation or current enforcement position is claimed.
Primary decisions
Read the 2024 judgment: paragraphs 6–7, 12–32 and 36–43. Read the 2025 Supreme Court judgment: paragraphs 16 and 47–53.