https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3500

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK** **ELC CASE NO. E001 OF 2025(OS)** **IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF TITLE BY** **ADVERSE POSSESSION OF THAT LAND PARCEL** **DESCRIBED** **AS CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT, CAP. 22 LAWS OF KENYA** **BETWEEN** **JOHN BETT……………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **JOHN OLE STEPHEN TIAMPAI...........................1ST DEFENDANT** **THE LAND REGISTRAR, NAROK……………………2ND DEFENDANT** **THE ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………3RD DEFENDANT** **JUDGEMENT** 1. The suit herein was commenced by way of an ***Originating Summons*** dated ***28th February 2025***, and filed on ***3rd March 2025,*** pursuant to ***Section 38*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act,*** Cap. 22 Laws of Kenya and ***Order 37 Rule 7*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules***, wherein the Plaintiff, ***John Bett,*** seeks to be declared as the proprietor of land parcel No. ***CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** measuring approximately ***3.01 hectares*** on the basis of ***adverse possession***. He also seeks for orders directing the cancellation of the 1st Defendant’s title, registration of the suit property in his name, authorization of the Deputy Registrar of this court to execute all requisite transfer documents, and costs of the suit. 2. The Plaintiff’s case is that he entered into possession of the suit property in ***1982,*** and has remained in ***open, peaceful, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted occupation*** thereof for a period exceeding forty years. He avers that he established his homestead on the said land, raised his family thereon, planted trees, cultivated crops, grazed livestock, erected permanent structures, and generally exercised rights of ownership over the property to the exclusion of all others. 3. The Plaintiff further contends that although the suit property was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant, ***John Ole Stephen Tiampai***, on ***9th December 1998***, the 1st Defendant herein, he never took any steps to recover possession of the land or interrupt his occupation. Therefore, the 1st Defendant’s title has been extinguished by operation of ***Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act.*** 4. The 1st Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed any response to the suit despite being served. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants filed a Replying Affidavit through the Land Registrar, confirming that the ***Adjudication Records*** and ***Green Card*** reflect the 1st Defendant ***(John Ole Stephen Tiampai)*** as the registered proprietor of the suit property. However, the Land Registrar stated that he was unable to confirm or rebut the Plaintiff’s allegations regarding ***occupation*** and ***possession,*** as such matters are within the knowledge of the registered proprietor. Ultimately, in their submissions, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants conceded that the Plaintiff had established the ingredients of adverse possession. 5. **Originating Summons** 6. The Plaintiff, ***John Bett***, commenced these proceedings by an Originating Summons dated ***28th February 2025,*** under ***Section 38*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act,*** Cap. 22 and ***Order 37 Rule 7*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules,*** seeking to be declared the lawful owner of land parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** measuring approximately ***3.01 hectares*** through ***adverse possession***. The suit is brought against ***John Ole Stephen Tiampai***, the registered proprietor of the land, together with the Land Registrar, Narok, and the Attorney General. 7. The Plaintiff contends that he entered unto and took possession of the suit property in ***1982***, and has since remained in ***continuous, open, peaceful, exclusive,*** and ***uninterrupted occupation*** of the entire parcel for over forty-five years. He avers that upon ***taking possession***, he established his homestead on the said land together with his children, who have since grown, married, and constructed their own homes on the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, several generations of his family have lived on the suit land, with old houses being replaced by new ones over time, and there are currently four houses standing on the property. 8. The Plaintiff further asserted that throughout his occupation, he has ***extensively developed*** and ***utilized*** the land by planting trees, including eucalyptus and grevillea robusta, cultivating crops such as maize and beans, grazing livestock, erecting permanent structures, and fencing portions of the property. He maintains that his ***possession*** and ***use*** of the suit land have been ***visible*** and ***notorious*** and have always been exercised without the permission of the registered owner. 9. The Plaintiff acknowledges that official land records show that the suit property was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant, ***John Ole Stephen Tiampai***, on ***9th December 1998.*** However, he asserts that despite such registration, he has remained in ***uninterrupted possession*** of the said land, and was never evicted, sued, or otherwise challenged in his occupation. He further avers that by the time of adjudication and subsequent registration processes, he had already occupied the land for more than ***twelve years*** and had therefore acquired rights by adverse possession. He also states that in ***2015,*** a portion of the property was fenced off as part of the ***Maasai Mau*** area, but this did not affect his ***continued occupation*** and ***use*** of the suit land. 10. According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant has always been aware of his ***occupation*** and ***developments*** on the property but has never taken any legal action to recover possession. The Plaintiff claims that his ***prolonged*** and ***uninterrupted occupation*** has ***extinguished*** the registered proprietor’s title by operation of law. He further alleges that the 1st Defendant has recently threatened him with eviction through persons claiming to have purchased the land from the 1st Defendant, thereby necessitating the filing of the present suit. 11. Consequently, the Plaintiff seeks declarations that he has acquired ownership the suit land being land of parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601*** by ***adverse possession***, that the title of the 1st Defendant has been ***extinguished*** by ***effluxion*** of time, and that he be registered as the absolute proprietor of the said land. He further prays for orders directing the ***Narok Land Registrar*** to rectify the register by cancelling the 1st Defendant’s registration and substituting it with his name, and for the Deputy Registrar of the Court to execute all necessary transfer documents should the Defendants fail to do so, and also for the costs of the suit. 12. **Supporting Affidavit** 13. The Originating Summons is supported by the affidavit of ***John Bett***, the Plaintiff herein sworn on ***28th February 2025***. The deponent averred that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He also averred that he has been in ***actual, open, exclusive***, ***continuous, and uninterrupted possession*** of said land parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601***, measuring approximately ***3.01 hectares***, for a period exceeding ***twelve years***, and has therefore acquired rights over this land by way of ***adverse possession.*** 14. The Plaintiff depones that he entered ***into possession*** of the suit property in ***1982,*** and immediately established his home there together with his family. He claims that he has lived on the land ***continuously*** since then, and that his children, some of whom were born on the suit property, have grown up, married, and constructed their own homes on the land. He asserted that over the years, some of the original houses became dilapidated and were replaced with new structures, further demonstrating his permanent occupation of the property. 15. The deponent further states that he has extensively developed and utilized the land by planting various trees, including eucalyptus and grevillea robusta, some of which have matured and have been harvested. He also avers that he has cultivated crops such as maize and beans, grazed livestock on the land, and erected permanent structures and fences. To support these assertions, he annexed photographs marked ***“JB-1”*** depicting mature trees, houses, crops, livestock, and other developments on the suit property. 16. According to the Plaintiff, his occupation has at all times been ***open, notorious, exclusive***, and ***adverse*** to the interests of the registered proprietor. He contends that he has exercised full dominion over the property for approximately ***forty-five years*** without ***interruption*** or ***permission*** from the Defendant. He further averred that official records from the Lands Registry show that the suit property was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant, ***John Ole Stephen Tiampai,*** on ***9th December 1998***, and annexed a copy of the official search marked “JB-2” in support of this assertion. 17. The Plaintiff depones that although a portion of the property was fenced off in ***2015,*** to form part of the ***Maasai Mau*** area, he nevertheless remained in possession and occupation of the suit land. He maintains that despite ***adjudication*** and ***registration processes***, he has never been evicted, sued, or otherwise challenged regarding his occupation of the property. He points out that by the time of ***adjudication*** in ***2015,*** he had already occupied the land for more than ***thirty years*** and had long surpassed the statutory ***twelve-year*** period required to establish adverse possession. 18. The deponent also averred that from the time the title was issued to the 1st Defendant in ***1998***, he continued to occupy and use the property ***openly*** and ***uninterruptedly.*** He asserts that the 1st Defendant has always been aware of his occupation and developments on the land but has never taken any steps to remove him or interrupt his possession. Consequently, he claims that the title of the registered proprietor has been ***extinguished*** by ***operation*** of law and that he has acquired ownership rights through adverse possession. 19. The Plaintiff also expresses concern that the suit property is at risk of being ***alienated, transferred***, or otherwise ***disposed*** of to his detriment unless ***preservatory*** ***orders*** are granted. It was his allegations that after enjoying peaceful occupation for over four decades, the 1st Defendant recently threatened him with eviction through individuals identified as ***Maleto*** and ***Sanamwala,*** who allegedly informed him that they had purchased the property from the 1st Defendant. Further, that he reported the threats to the area Chief, who advised him to seek legal redress before the court. 20. Finally, the Plaintiff calimed that he has acquired a proprietary interest in the suit property by virtue of ***Sections 7, 13, and 17*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act*** and believes that he is entitled to be declared the lawful owner of the land through adverse possession. 21. **Replying Affidavit** 22. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants opposed the Plaintiff’s claim through a Replying Affidavit sworn on ***27th June 2025,*** by ***Philip Odida***, the ***Land Registrar***, Narok Lands Office. The deponent averred that he is conversant with the matters in dispute by virtue of his official position, and was duly authorized to swear the Affidavit on behalf of the Land Registrar. He further avers that he had read and understood the Plaintiff’s ***Originating Summons*** dated ***28th February 2025*** and responded to it based on the records maintained at the Lands Registry. 23. The Land Registrar confirms that the dispute herein concerns land parcel No. ***CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** measuring approximately ***3.01 hectares***. He also averred that upon perusal of the records held at the Lands Registry, the ***Adjudication Records*** indicate that the land parcel in dispute was adjudicated and recorded in the name of ***John Ole Stephen Tiampati***, the 1st Defendant herein. To support this position, he annexed a copy of the ***Adjudication*** Record marked ***“PO-1”.*** 24. The deponent further averred that the ***Green Card*** relating to the suit property similarly reflects ***John Ole Stephen Tiampati*** as the registered proprietor from the first entry in the register. A copy of the Green Card was annexed and marked “PO-2”. According to the Land Registrar, therefore, the official land records consistently identify the 1st Defendant as the lawful registered owner of the suit property. 25. With regard to the Plaintiff’s allegations that he has occupied and utilized the land continuously since ***1982*** and has remained on the property for approximately ***forty-five*** years without interruption, the deponent averred that such factual assertions cannot be confirmed or disproved by the Lands Registry. He maintained that the question of whether the Plaintiff has been in ***possession*** of the land for the period alleged is a matter that can only properly be addressed by the 1st Defendant herein, as the registered proprietor of the land. 26. In essence, the Replying Affidavit does not directly contest the Plaintiff’s allegations of occupation and possession but confines itself to clarifying the position reflected in the official land records. The deponent reiterates that the ***adjudication records*** and land ***register*** identify the 1st Defendant as the registered owner of parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** and left the issue of the Plaintiff’s alleged occupation and claim for adverse possession to be addressed by the registered proprietor. 27. This Originating Summons was canvassed by way of written submissions and directed by the court. 28. **Plaintiff’s submissions** 29. The Plaintiff filed his written submissions in support of this Originating Summons **and** urged the court to find that he had acquired ownership of land parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** measuring approximately ***3.01 hectares*** by adverse possession. The Plaintiff further submitted that the suit was instituted on ***3rd March 2025,*** seeking declarations that he had become entitled to the suit property by adverse possession, that the title of the 1st Defendant had been ***extinguished by operation of law,*** that he be registered as the proprietor of the land, and that the Deputy Registrar be authorized to execute all necessary transfer documents. Further, he sought for the costs of the suit. 1. It was the Plaintiff’s submissions his claim was supported by the grounds contained in the Originating Summons and the Supporting Affidavit, together with documentary evidence including photographs showing permanent structures, mature trees, crops, livestock, a borehole, and official land records relating to the suit property. It was further submitted that although the 1st Defendant was duly served with the pleadings, he neither entered appearance nor filed a response, leading to the entry of interlocutory judgment against him. The only response on record was the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Land Registrar on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 1. The Plaintiff’s case, as presented in the submissions, was that he entered into possession of the suit property in ***1982*** after purchasing it from the 1st Defendant before the adjudication process in ***the CIS-MARA OLPUSIMORU*** area. According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant, who was then the allottee of the land, sold the property to him and relocated to another parcel of land within ***Narok County***, leaving him in ***possession.*** He also argued that since taking possession, the Plaintiff had established his home on the land, raised his family thereon, and remained in uninterrupted occupation for over forty-five years. His children have grown up on the property, married, and constructed their own homes on the said land. The Plaintiff further contended that he had developed the property extensively by planting trees, cultivating crops, grazing livestock, and erecting permanent structures, all of which demonstrated actual possession and control of the land. 1. The Plaintiff identified the sole issue for determination as whether he had met the legal threshold for the grant of orders of adverse possession over the entire ***3.01 hectares*** comprised in the suit property. In addressing this issue, the Plaintiff relied on ***Section 38(1) and (2)*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act***, ***Cap. 22, LoK*** which empowers the court to order registration of a person as proprietor of land where that person has acquired title through adverse possession. 2. The Plaintiff further relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in **Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi[2015] eKLR**, where the Court explained that adverse possession arises where a person ***takes possession*** of land and asserts rights over it while the registered owner neglects or omits to take action to recover the land for the statutory period of twelve years. The Court emphasized that such possession must not be by ***force, secrecy***, or ***permission,*** and must be ***continuous, open,*** and ***notorious.*** 1. Relying on that authority, the Plaintiff further submitted that he has demonstrated all the essential ingredients of ***adverse possession***, namely ***open occupation, possession without force, possession without secrecy***, and p***ossession without*** the ***licence*** or ***permission*** of the ***registered proprietor.*** 2. The Plaintiff also cited the case of **Munyaka Kuna Company Limited v Bernado Vicezo De Masi (Administrator of the Estate of Domenico De Masi (Deceased) [2018] eKLR),** where the court held that a claimant for adverse possession must prove factual possession coupled with the intention to possess ***(animus possidendi***), establish that the possession ***was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (without force, secrecy***, or ***permission)***; demonstrate that the registered owner knew or ought to have known of the ***possession,*** and show that such possession was ***continuous*** and ***uninterrupted*** for the statutory period. Counsel also argued that the Plaintiff had satisfied each of these requirements through his evidence of long occupation, development, cultivation, and exclusive use of the property. 3. Further reliance was placed in decision of the Court of Appeal in **Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 Others v Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & Another [2015] eKLR,** where the Court stated that ***adverse*** possession requires proof that the land is registered in another person's name, that the claimant has been in ***open*** and ***exclusive possession*** adverse to the owner's title, and that such possession has persisted for more than twelve years. In the same decision, the Court also reaffirmed the principles established in the case of **Kasuve v Mwaani Investments Limited & 4 Others [2004]1KLR and Wanje v Saikwa,** namely that a claimant must prove ***exclusive possession*** as of right for the statutory period and that the registered owner must either have been ***dispossessed*** or have ***discontinued possession.*** 4. It was further submitted that the evidence before the court demonstrated that the Plaintiff took ***possession*** of the suit land before adjudication, and long before the issuance of title to the 1st Defendant on ***9th December 1998***. It was argued that even after adjudication and registration, the Plaintiff remained in ***open, peaceful, and uninterrupted*** ***possession*** of the land without objection from the registered proprietor. The Plaintiff further maintained that his occupation had never been interrupted by eviction proceedings, trespass claims, or any legal action by the 1st Defendant. The ***Adjudication Records,*** ***official search, Green Card***, photographs, and the 1982 sale agreement were cited as corroborative evidence of the Plaintiff’s long-standing occupation and possession. 5. Further, that his occupation had been ***open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and adverse*** to the title of the registered proprietor for a period far exceeding the statutory period of ***twelve years***. Further, that the 1st Defendant had acquiesced to the Plaintiff’s possession by failing to assert his ownership rights for decades and that, by operation of ***Sections 7, 13, 17, and 38*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act***, the 1st Defendant’s title had been extinguished while the Plaintiff had acquired proprietary rights over the land. 6. In conclusion, the Plaintiff submitted that he had established all the legal ingredients of ***adverse possession*** as articulated in the cited authorities and had proved his claim on a balance of probabilities. Therefore, the Plaintiff urged the court to grant him all the prayers sought in the ***Originating Summons***, including registration of the suit property in his name and an award of costs. 7. **2nd and 3rd Respondent’s submissions** 8. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, namely the ***Land Registrar,*** ***Narok,*** and the ***Attorney General***, filed written their submissions in response to the Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession. While acknowledging that they had entered appearance and filed a Replying Affidavit through the Land Registrar, the Respondents ultimately took the position that the evidence placed before the court supported the Plaintiff’s claim and that the requirements for acquisition of title by ***adverse possession*** had been satisfied. 1. The Respondents identified a single issue for determination, namely whether the Plaintiff had met the legal threshold for the grant of orders of adverse possession over land parcel ***No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601*** measuring approximately 3.01 hectares. 2. In addressing that issue, the Respondents reviewed the legal principles governing adverse possession and relied on several judicial authorities setting out the elements that a claimant must establish. 3. First, reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal decision in **Wambugu v Njuguna[1983]KLR 173,** where the Court held that ***adverse* possession** encompasses the concepts of ***possession*** and ***discontinuance*** of ***possession.*** The Court emphasized that the proper inquiry is whether the registered owner has been ***dispossessed*** of the land or has ***discontinued possession*** for the statutory period, rather than merely whether the claimant has occupied the land for the requisite number of years. The Respondents further submitted that this authority demonstrates that the focus of the court should be on the conduct of the registered owner, and whether he failed to assert his proprietary rights for the statutory period. 4. The Respondents further relied on the case **Mbira v Gachuhi[2002]1EALR 137,** in which the court held that a person seeking to acquire title by adverse possession must prove ***actual, open, notorious, exclusive, adverse***, and ***non-permissive occupation*** of the land for the statutory period without interruption. Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiff’s evidence was consistent with these requirements, particularly his assertion that he had occupied the suit property openly and continuously for over four decades. 5. The Respondents also cited the case of **Jandu v Kirpal &** **Another [1975] EA 225,** where the court stated that isolated acts of possession are insufficient and that ***adverse possession*** must be adequate in continuity, ***publicity,*** and extent to demonstrate hostility to the title of the true owner. The possession must be actual, visible, exclusive, open, and notorious. It was also submitted that the ***Plaintiff’s occupation***, evidenced by ***residential structures***, ***mature trees, farming activities, livestock keeping***, and ***other developments*** on the land, met this legal standard. 1. Further reliance was placed on the Court of Appeal decision of **Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi[2005]eKLR**, where the Court explained that adverse possession arises when a person takes possession of land, asserts rights over it, and the registered owner neglects or omits to take action to recover possession for a period of twelve years. The Respondents reiterated the established principle that possession must be ***nec vi, nec clam, nec precario***—that is, ***peaceful, open, continuous***, and ***without force, secrecy***, or permission from the owner. 2. Applying those principles to the facts before the court, the Respondents observed that the Plaintiff had consistently maintained that he entered into the suit property in ***1982*** and had remained in occupation for approximately ***forty-three years.*** They further argued that the Plaintiff's evidence was that; he established his home on the property, raised his family thereon, and that the land had become the family's permanent residence. Accordingly, these facts demonstrated ***continuous*** and ***uninterrupted possession*** well beyond the statutory ***twelve-year*** period. 3. The Respondents further noted that the Plaintiff had produced photographs showing mature trees, residential structures, crops, and livestock on the suit property, together with an official search confirming that the land was registered in the name of the 1st Defendant. 4. The Respondents further pointed out that, in their own Replying Affidavit, they had merely confirmed from the ***Adjudication Records*** and ***Green Card*** that the 1st Defendant was the registered proprietor of the suit land. Further, that any challenge to the Plaintiff’s alleged occupation and possession could only properly be mounted by the 1st Defendant. 5. Significantly, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants emphasized that the 1st Defendant neither entered appearance nor filed any response to contest the Plaintiff’s allegations. As a result, there was no evidence before the court contradicting the Plaintiff’s assertions regarding his ***occupation*** and use of the suit property. In their views, the Plaintiff’s evidence therefore remained uncontroverted. 6. Having considered the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, all the elements necessary to sustain a claim for adverse possession. They expressed the view that the Plaintiff had brought himself within the scope of the doctrine of ***adverse possession*** by demonstrating ***open, continuous, notorious, exclusive***, and ***uninterrupted possession*** of the suit property for a period well in excess of twelve years. 7. Accordingly, the Respondents urged the court to evaluate the evidence in light of the cited authorities and make an appropriate determination in accordance with the law, while effectively conceding that the Plaintiff had proved the requirements necessary for the grant of the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. 8. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.** 9. Having considered the pleadings, Affidavits on the record, the annexures, and respective written submissions filed by the parties herein, the Court is of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination: 10. **Whether the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he has acquired title to land parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601 by adverse possession.** 11. **Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons.** 12. **Who should bear the costs of the suit.** 13. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION.** 14. **Whether the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he has acquired title to land parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601 by adverse possession.** 15. The law governing adverse possession in Kenya is found in ***Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 Laws of Kenya***. Section 7 bars any action to recover land after the expiry of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued. Section 17 provides that upon expiry of the limitation period, the title of the registered proprietor is ***extinguished,*** while ***Section 38*** empowers the Court to order registration of a successful adverse possessor as proprietor of the land. 16. The principles governing claims for adverse possession are now settled. In the case of **Wambugu v Njuguna [1983] KLR 173**, the Court of Appeal held that adverse possession contemplates two concepts, namely ***dispossession*** and ***discontinuance of possession***. The Court stated that the proper inquiry is whether the title holder has been ***dispossessed*** or has ***discontinued possession*** for the statutory period. 1. In the case **Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi [2015] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal defined adverse possession as follows: ***“Adverse possession is essentially a situation where a person takes possession of land and asserts rights over it, and the person having title to it omits or neglects to take action against such person in assertion of his title for a certain period, in Kenya, is twelve (12) years. The process springs into action essentially by default or inaction of the owner. The essential prerequisites being that the possession of the adverse possessor is neither by force or stealth or under the licence of the owner. It must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to show that possession is adverse to the title owner. This doctrine in Kenya is embodied in Section 7 of the***[***Limitation of Actions Act***](http://kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=CAP.%2022)***…...”*** 1. Similarly, in the case of **Mbira v Gachuhi [2002] 1 E.A. 137**, the Court held that a person claiming ***adverse possession*** must demonstrate ***actual, open, notorious, exclusive*** and ***adverse use*** of the ***land continuously*** and ***without interruption*** for the statutory period of ***12 years.*** 2. The Court of Appeal in **Kasuve v Mwaani Investments Limited & 4 Others [2004] 1 KLR 184** reiterated that a claimant must prove that he has been in ***exclusive possession*** of the land openly and as of right without interruption for twelve years either after dispossessing the owner or after the owner has discontinued possession. 3. Further in the case of **Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 Others v Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & Another [2015] eKLR**, the Court held that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the claimant must show that the land is registered in another person's name, that he has occupied the land openly and exclusively, and that such occupation has persisted uninterrupted for a period exceeding twelve years. 4. The evidence before the Court shows that the suit property is registered in the name of the 1st Defendant herein John Ole ***Stephen Tiampai*** The official search and ***Green Card*** produced by both the Plaintiff and the ***Land Registrar*** confirm that registration was effected on ***9th December 1998***. Therefore, the first ingredient of ***adverse possession*** has been established. 5. The Plaintiff's evidence is that he entered into the suit property in ***1982.*** He established his homestead thereon, raised his family on the said land, planted trees, cultivated crops, grazed livestock, erected houses and fences, and generally treated the property as his own. Photographs annexed to the Supporting Affidavit depict mature trees, residential structures, agricultural activities, and livestock. These developments are consistent with long-term occupation and possession. 1. The Court notes that the Plaintiff's evidence regarding occupation and use of the suit property has not been controverted. The 1st Defendant, who would have been best placed to challenge the Plaintiff’s assertions, failed to enter appearance or file any response. Equally, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants expressly stated that they were unable to rebut the Plaintiff’s allegations concerning occupation and possession. 2. The Court is therefore left with unchallenged evidence that the Plaintiff has occupied the suit property openly and continuously since 1982. There is no evidence that such occupation was ***clandestine, forceful***, or ***permissive***. The Plaintiff’s activities on the land, including construction of houses, cultivation, livestock keeping and tree planting, were visible and notorious and would have been apparent to any diligent owner. 3. Further, the Court finds that the ***Plaintiff's possession*** was ***exclusive*** and ***adverse t***o the interests of the registered proprietor. The evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff exercised rights of ownership over the entire parcel, while the 1st Defendant neither occupied the land nor took any legal steps to recover possession. Such conduct amounts to dispossession of the registered owner and discontinuance of possession within the meaning of **Wambugu v Njuguna (Supra).** 1. The Court also takes cognizance of the Plaintiff’s evidence that he entered into suit the land pursuant to a sale transaction in ***1982*** before adjudication and registration of the land. The law is settled that where possession is founded on a sale agreement which is not completed by transfer, time for purposes of adverse possession begins to run once the purchaser takes possession and the transaction ceases to be enforceable. 2. In the case of **Public Trustee v Wanduru Ndegwa [1984] KECA 72 (KLR),** the Court of Appeal held that where a purchaser remains in possession after payment of the purchase price, and no transfer is effected, time begins to run in his favour for purposes of ***adverse possession.*** 3. By the time the suit property was registered in the 1st Defendant’s name on ***9th December 1998***, the Plaintiff had already been in possession for approximately sixteen years. Thereafter, he continued occupying the property openly and uninterruptedly up to the filing of the suit in 2025. Consequently, the statutory period of twelve years had long expired. 1. In the case of **Jandu v Kirpal & Another [1975] EA 225**, the Court held that ***possession*** must be ***actual, visible, exclusive, open*** and ***notorious.*** The Plaintiff’s evidence satisfies all these requirements. His occupation was neither occasional nor sporadic, but it was ***permanent, extensive***, and ***uninterrupted*** over several decades. 2. Having considered the evidence as a whole and the applicable law, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he has been in ***open, notorious***, ***exclusive, peaceful and uninterrupted possession*** of land parcel No. ***CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601,*** for a period far exceeding twelve years, and that such possession has been adverse to the title of the 1st Defendant. 3. Therefore, this court finds and holds that the Plaintiff has acquired title to the suit property byby virtue of ***adverse possession*** and that the 1st Defendant’s title has been extinguished by operation of Sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act. 1. **Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought** 2. Having found that the Plaintiff has established his claim for adverse possession, it follows that he is entitled to the reliefs sought in the Originating Summons. 3. Pursuant to ***Section 38*** of the ***Limitation of Actions Act,*** the Court is empowered to order that a successful claimant be registered as proprietor of the land in place of the registered owner. 4. Accordingly, judgment is entered for the Plaintiff as against the Defendants herein jointly and severally in the following terms: 5. ***A declaration is hereby issued that the Plaintiff, John Bett, has acquired title to land parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601 measuring approximately 3.01 hectares by adverse possession.*** 6. ***A declaration is hereby issued that the title of the 1st Defendant, John Ole Stephen Tiampai, over land*** ***parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601 has been extinguished by operation of Sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act.*** 1. ***An order is hereby issued directing the Land Registrar, Narok, to rectify the register relating to land parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601 by cancelling the registration of the 1st Defendant and registering the Plaintiff as the absolute proprietor thereof.*** 2. ***In default of execution of any necessary transfer instruments, the Deputy Registrar of this Court shall execute all documents required to facilitate registration of the Plaintiff as proprietor of land parcel No. CISMARA/OLPUSIMORU/601.*** 3. ***On Costs*** 4. Costs ordinarily follow the event pursuant to ***Section 2***7 of the ***Civil Procedure Act***. The Plaintiff has succeeded in his claim, and there is no reason to depart from that general principle. 5. Consequently, the Plaintiff shall have the costs of this suit as against the 1st Defendant only. Given the position taken by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the fact that they merely discharged their statutory duty by placing the land records before the Court, no costs shall attach to them. 1. **FINAL DISPOSITION** 2. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff in the terms set out above. 3. It is so ordered. **Dated, signed, and delivered Virtually at Narok, this 4th day of June, 2026** **L. Gacheru** **Judge** **4/6/2026** ***Delivered online in the presence of*** ***Elijah Meyoki - Court Assistant*** ***N/A for the Plaintiffs*** ***N/A for the 1st Defendant*** ***N/A for the 2nd Defendant*** ***N/A for the 3rd Defendant***