[2019] KEELC 2101 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2101 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent’s family had occupied the disputed 7.5 acres since 1943 pursuant to a valid sale agreement. The applicant did not dispute the respondent’s long occupation or provide evidence of any attempt by the estate’s predecessors to challenge this occupation over several decades. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2101 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abud Mohamed Abud; Defendant: Twahiya Mohammed Bin Abdallah
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 27 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
originating summons dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Succession Rights, Ownership Dispute
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Succession Rights Ownership Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abud Mohamed Abud

Plaintiff

Twahiya Mohammed Bin Abdallah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Plot No. 309 Malindi is jointly registered in the names of Hamed Bin Omar (Deceased) and the heirs of Said Bin Omar (Deceased).
  2. 2 Whether the Khadhi’s Court’s determination in Succession Cause No. 55 of 2009 established the late Esha Said Abdalla as an heir of the late Said Bin Omar.
  3. 3 Whether Esha Said Abdalla or her heirs are entitled to one-third (20.11 acres) of Plot No. 309 Malindi.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent’s family had occupied the disputed 7.5 acres since 1943 pursuant to a valid sale agreement. The applicant did not dispute the respondent’s long occupation or provide evidence of any attempt by the estate’s predecessors to challenge this occupation over several decades. The court held that the applicant’s claim was undermined by the respondent’s demonstrated lawful purchase and continuous possession, and that the estate’s acquiescence to the respondent’s occupation further weakened the applicant’s case. The Kadhi’s Court succession determination did not displace the respondent’s rights acquired through purchase and long-standing possession. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

originating summons dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Originating Summons is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.