[2005] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish whether the suit land was still under adjudication at the time the suit was filed, making it unclear if consent from the Land Adjudication Officer was necessary. Additionally, the court held that adverse possession could only be claimed after...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1078 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Elias Obonyo Okono; Respondent: John Omonge Misenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 34 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Land Adjudication, Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elias Obonyo Okono
Appellant
John Omonge Misenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate's Court erred in entertaining a land dispute allegedly still under adjudication without consent of the Land Adjudication Officer as required by Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent's claim was time-barred due to the appellant's alleged adverse possession since 1972.
- 3 Whether the appellant had acquired the suit land by adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish whether the suit land was still under adjudication at the time the suit was filed, making it unclear if consent from the Land Adjudication Officer was necessary. Additionally, the court held that adverse possession could only be claimed after registration of the land, and it was not conclusively shown that the appellant had acquired the land by adverse possession. As such, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate erred in law or fact, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
Civil Appeal 34 of 2002 (1)
ELIAS OBONYO OKONO ..............................................……………... APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOHN OMONGE MISENYA .....................................…………...…... RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Homa-Bay,
delivered by J. WANJALA /RM dated 13thNovember, 2001)
IN
(LAND CASE NO. 5 of 2001)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from judgment and decree of the Homa-Bay Senior Resident Magistrates Court in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2001, which was delivered on 13th November 2001.
In his submission, Mr Kowinoh contended that the Magistrate erred in entertaining a dispute relating to a piece of land which was still under adjudication process without a consent of the Land Adjudication Officer in terms of Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act (Cap 284). That was confirmed according to Mr Kowinoh by the evidence adduced in lower Court.
It was also submitted by Mr Kowinoh that the respondent’s claim in this case is time barred as confirmed by Paragraph 4 of the plaint which indicates that the appellant moved onto the suit land in 1972. it was confirmed that this suit was filed at Homa-Bay Senior Resident Magistrates Court on 21st February 2001. According to Mr Kowinoh, the defence and the evidence of the respondent and his witnesses all confirmed that the appellant entered the suit land and built his house thereon in 1972, and that when the suit was filed, the appellant had had 19 years of continuous and uninterrupted occupation of it which indicated that the respondent’s rights had long been extinguished when he brought this case.
In his reply, the respondent claimed that the suit land had belonged to his grandfather. He had contended at the lower Court that the land Adjudication Officer had referred him to the Court to seek an order of eviction of the appellant.
The difficulty I have in this appeal is that there is no evidence that when the suit was filed at Homa-Bay Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court, the land in dispute was still under Land Adjudication Process. The respondent in his plaint had averred that his claim against the appellant was a declaration that parcel no. Kaksingri East/Suba/121 belongs to him. The title given denotes that the land is registered and that it is no longer under adjudication process.On the other hand the appellant in his defence appears to suggest that adjudication it was not finalized. It is not therefore clear from the evidence adduced that the suit land was such that a consent of the Land Adjudication Officer was necessary before the suit was filed. Likewise, the prescriptive rights of the owner of a piece of land could only be adversely acquired by an intruder after registration of the land. If the appellant had been a first registered owner of the suit land by the time this suit was filed then the grounds in support of the appeal should be different from those advanced before me.
On the material made available to me, I cannot positively decide that the Learned Magistrate had erred in entertaining a dispute involving a parcel of land which was still within the land adjudication process contrary to Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act. I am also not able to conclusively hold that the appellant had acquired by adverse possession the land in dispute between him and the respondent.
In the circumstances, I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 11th day of November, 2005.
B. K. TANUI
JUDGE
In the presence of: Mochana for Kowino for appellant N/A for respondent
B. K. TANUI
JUDGE