[2018] KEELC 2445 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2445 (KLR)

The court found that the suit land is registered under the Land Consolidation Act, which is not among the statutes specified in section 37 of the Limitation of Actions Act for adverse possession claims. The legal regime under the Land Consolidation Act is one of ascertainment and recording of rights, not individual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2445 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Grace Thirindi Samuel; Defendant: Joyce Inombabu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Originating Summons 312 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Adjudication, Limitation of Actions, Estate Administration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Land Adjudication Limitation of Actions Estate Administration

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Thirindi Samuel

Plaintiff

Joyce Inombabu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to land parcel no. 148 Akirang’ondu 'A' by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether adverse possession can be claimed over land under adjudication and not yet registered under the relevant statutes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit land is registered under the Land Consolidation Act, which is not among the statutes specified in section 37 of the Limitation of Actions Act for adverse possession claims. The legal regime under the Land Consolidation Act is one of ascertainment and recording of rights, not individual tenure, until title deeds are issued. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for adverse possession is not maintainable in law as the land is not registered under the relevant statutes. The suit was dismissed as the statutory requirements for adverse possession were not met.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.