A power of attorney is not necessarily authority over everything the person granting it owns. Githinji v Murage concerned a farm which, on the evidence accepted by the court, was outside an instrument authorising management of other named properties.
The family relationship did not settle that question. The court examined the instrument's limited scope, the succession documents and whether the defendant had supplied evidence of some other right to occupy.
Case identity
- Case: Githinji v Murage.
- Court: Environment and Land Court, Environment and Land Case 004 of 2022.
- Decision date: 18 December 2025.
- Citation: [2025] KEELC 18597 (KLR).
- Primary source: Read the judgment.
Management of some properties, occupation of another
The plaintiff said she and her late husband had lived abroad and entrusted a relative with managing specific Kenyan properties. Her husband had executed a power of attorney in 2011 covering two named Nairobi holdings.
Her claim concerned a different property: a Kiserian farm. She said the instrument did not cover it and that the defendant occupied it, erected structures and remained despite demands to leave.
She relied on her position as administrator and beneficiary of her husband's estate, together with the title and confirmation of grant. She sought declarations, an injunction, eviction, general damages and annual mesne profits (paragraphs 1–5).
The defendant pleaded that his occupation was lawful and authorised. He denied trespass, fraud and the alleged limits asserted against him. Those denials were real competing positions in the pleadings, but he called no witness to substantiate them (paragraphs 6–13).
It would be inaccurate to report his defence as if supported by testimony the court rejected. The evidential position was that the plaintiff testified and produced documents, while the defendant's assertions remained unsupported.
The court examined the particular authority
The court accepted the plaintiff's account of the title and succession chain. It found no evidential challenge undermining her acquisition (paragraphs 22–28).
It then addressed the power of attorney. The accepted evidence confined it to the two specified properties and excluded the farm in dispute. No other evidence established permission from the deceased during his lifetime or from the plaintiff as administrator (paragraphs 29–32).
The court also found that no trust, beneficial interest or other equitable entitlement had been pleaded and proved to justify the defendant's occupation. On that record, it held the occupation unlawful and characterised it as trespass and intermeddling with the estate (paragraphs 33–38).
Those are findings in this civil judgment, not a criminal conviction or a general rule that relatives cannot have beneficial interests. A claimed trust must be assessed on its own pleadings and evidence; family connection alone did not establish one here.
Damages and profits were treated differently
The court granted a permanent injunction and ordered eviction forthwith, expressly requiring execution in accordance with the law. It awarded KSh 1 million in general damages for trespass, taking account of the occupation and structures.
The plaintiff also claimed mesne profits at KSh 1 million per year. That claim failed because she had not supplied valuation or documentary evidence supporting the figure (paragraphs 39–45).
At paragraph 47, the court declared her proprietor and the occupation unlawful, granted the injunction and lawful eviction, and awarded damages and suit costs. Both damages and costs bear interest at court rates from judgment until payment in full. The annual income claim was expressly refused.
The difference matters for an owner estimating recovery. Success on occupation and entitlement to some damages does not prove every claimed loss. Neither the order nor this article confirms that payment, eviction or later registration steps occurred.
Questions when someone acts for an absent owner
- Does the instrument name this property, or only other holdings?
- Does it authorise the particular act proposed, rather than a different management function?
- What documents support authority after succession becomes relevant?
- Is the person claiming occupation relying on the instrument, separate permission or an asserted beneficial interest?
- If income loss is claimed, what valuation and supporting records establish it?
These questions call for the actual instrument and appropriate professional advice, not a general assurance that someone “has power of attorney.” The underlying instrument and succession file were not separately obtained for this article; the account follows the court's findings about them.
A later-history search on 11 September 2026 did not verify a subsequent order changing the result. Present ownership, compliance and any further proceedings remain separate checks.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Ask which sources can inform a dated authority-and-occupation record and which private instruments still need examination. Screening cannot certify an attorney's authority, replace an official search or guarantee detection of unauthorised occupation. Advocate advice and any necessary field checks remain separate. This article is educational, not legal advice.