[2017] KEELC 937 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 937 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff is the lawfully registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired a valid title under the Land Registration Act. The defendant and his family, although in occupation, failed to meet the requirements for adverse possession because their occupation was interrupted by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 937 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Mundia Gicheru; Defendant: Peter Njagi Njue; Plaintiff: Flavia Mukwanjeru Erenkanya; Plaintiff: Antony Kinyua; Plaintiff: Sophia Muthoni; Plaintiff: Lawrence Kiraithe; Plaintiff: Kenneth Gitonga; Plaintiff: Murithi Njue; Plaintiff: Mutembei Njue
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 10 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendant's counter-claim dismissed; eviction order granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Eviction Orders, Land Registration, Title to Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Eviction Orders Land Registration Title to Land

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Mundia Gicheru

Plaintiff

Peter Njagi Njue

Defendant

Flavia Mukwanjeru Erenkanya

Plaintiff

Antony Kinyua

Plaintiff

Sophia Muthoni

Plaintiff

Lawrence Kiraithe

Plaintiff

Kenneth Gitonga

Plaintiff

Murithi Njue

Plaintiff

Mutembei Njue

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a good title in respect of the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant and his family have acquired the title to the suit land by way of adverse possession.
  3. 3 Whether an order of eviction should be issued against the defendants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff is the lawfully registered proprietor of the suit land, having acquired a valid title under the Land Registration Act. The defendant and his family, although in occupation, failed to meet the requirements for adverse possession because their occupation was interrupted by the plaintiff's institution of suit in 2007, which stopped the running of time necessary for adverse possession. Previous litigation also indicated interruptions to the defendant's family's occupation. As a result, the defendant's counter-claim for adverse possession failed, and the plaintiff was entitled to an order of eviction and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendant's counter-claim dismissed; eviction order granted; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The counter-claim filed by the defendant on 11.2.13 is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the plaintiffs in H.C.C NO. 179 of 2014 are not entitled to the suit land by way of adverse possession.