[2014] KEHC 2868 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 2868 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they had been in continuous, open, and uninterrupted occupation of the suit property for over 12 years. The evidence included affidavits, photographs, and a certificate of search confirming the defendants as registered owners....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 2868 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hamisi Omar Juma; Applicant: Mwamuye Dau Ngala; Applicant: Mwalumbi Mwangata & 150 Others; Respondent: Amralbai J. Rajshi Shah; Respondent: Pedro Jose Constancio Clodomiro
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 631 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed. Title by adverse possession granted.
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Registration of Titles, Squatters Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Registration of Titles Squatters Rights

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamisi Omar Juma

Applicant

Mwamuye Dau Ngala

Applicant

Mwalumbi Mwangata & 150 Others

Applicant

Amralbai J. Rajshi Shah

Respondent

Pedro Jose Constancio Clodomiro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title to Plot No. MN/1/399 (CR. 7876) by way of adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' interest in the suit property has been extinguished under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they had been in continuous, open, and uninterrupted occupation of the suit property for over 12 years. The evidence included affidavits, photographs, and a certificate of search confirming the defendants as registered owners. The applicants' occupation was not challenged or interrupted by the respondents, who failed to appear or defend the suit despite being served by substituted service. The court held that the applicants had acquired title to the land by adverse possession under the Limitation of Actions Act. Consequently, the defendants' interest in the property was extinguished, and the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed. Title by adverse possession granted.

Orders

  • The defendants' interest in Plot No. MN/1/399 (CR. 7876) is extinguished.
  • The applicants are to be registered as proprietors of Plot No. MN/1/399 (CR. 7876) in place of the defendants by reason of adverse possession.