[2018] KEHC 8335 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8335 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had been in continuous, open, and notorious possession of the disputed portion of land since 1983, having purchased it from the 1st defendant and paid the full purchase price. Despite the lack of Land Control Board consent, her occupation exceeded 12 years, and the 1st defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8335 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Dyphinah M. Khaonjeli; Defendant: Waziri Abubakari Ali; Defendant: Bakari Orata Amisi; Defendant: Athumani Wesonga Waziri; Defendant: Hanifa Nafula Waziri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 75 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; related suits dismissed.
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Title Extinguishment, Unlawful Transfer, Land Control Act, Eviction, Injunction
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Land Title Extinguishment Unlawful Transfer Land Control Act Eviction Injunction

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyphinah M. Khaonjeli

Plaintiff

Waziri Abubakari Ali

Defendant

Bakari Orata Amisi

Defendant

Athumani Wesonga Waziri

Defendant

Hanifa Nafula Waziri

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to the disputed portion of land by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant's title to the portion has been extinguished by the plaintiff's occupation for over 12 years.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of the disputed portion to the 2nd and 3rd defendants was lawful or intended to defeat the plaintiff's interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had been in continuous, open, and notorious possession of the disputed portion of land since 1983, having purchased it from the 1st defendant and paid the full purchase price. Despite the lack of Land Control Board consent, her occupation exceeded 12 years, and the 1st defendant took no legal action to remove her. The subsequent subdivision and transfer of the land to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and to the 1st defendant's wife were found to be attempts to defeat the plaintiff's interests, but by the time of subdivision, the plaintiff had already acquired title by adverse possession. The court held that the 1st defendant's title had been extinguished, and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; related suits dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff declared owner of the disputed portion of land by adverse possession.
  • Title of the 1st defendant to the disputed portion is extinguished.