[2017] KEELC 3389 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3389 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for adverse possession. The evidence and prior appellate decisions established that the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land was initially by consent under a sale agreement, and the agreement collapsed definitively on 6th March 1986. From that date to the filing of the defendant's eviction suit on 23rd September 1992, less than 12 years had elapsed, failing the statutory requirement for adverse possession. The Court of Appeal had already determined that the limitation period had not run, and this finding was binding. Furthermore, the plaintiff's subsequent actions, including the fraudulent removal of a court-ordered...

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3389 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Mugambi; Plaintiff: Jacob Kairanya M’Raibuni; Defendant: Jason Mathiu Mwongera
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 102 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Fraudulent Transfer, Land Ownership Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Fraudulent Transfer Land Ownership Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Mugambi

Plaintiff

Jacob Kairanya M’Raibuni

Plaintiff

Jason Mathiu Mwongera

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired title to L.P NO. GAKAWA/KAHURURA/BLOCK 3/203 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for the requisite statutory period.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of the suit land by the plaintiff to himself and to a third party was fraudulent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for adverse possession. The evidence and prior appellate decisions established that the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land was initially by consent under a sale agreement, and the agreement collapsed definitively on 6th March 1986. From that date to the filing of the defendant's eviction suit on 23rd September 1992, less than 12 years had elapsed, failing the statutory requirement for adverse possession. The Court of Appeal had already determined that the limitation period had not run, and this finding was binding. Furthermore, the plaintiff's subsequent actions, including the fraudulent removal of a court-ordered...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the transfer of the suit land by the 1st plaintiff to himself and to Juliano Muthomi Ndege was fraudulent; the land registrar is ordered to cancel the name of Juliano Muthomi Ndege and revert ownership to Jason Mathiu Mwongera.