[2014] KEHC 259 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land, Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219, for over 20 years without any interference from the defendants. The defendants failed to appear or contest the claim despite proper service. The court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 259 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Muthuri Ikunyua; Defendant: James Mwiteri Kinyua & 3 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 135 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; plaintiff to be registered as absolute owner; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration
- 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
Joseph Muthuri Ikunyua
Plaintiff
James Mwiteri Kinyua & 3 Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff can be deprived of his developed land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 after a stay of more than 20 years without interference from the defendants.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff can be registered as the absolute owner of Land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by way of adverse possession under section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 3 Whether the defendants are conspiring to defraud the plaintiff's land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by using the court after a stay of more than 20 years against the Limitation of Actions Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land, Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219, for over 20 years without any interference from the defendants. The defendants failed to appear or contest the claim despite proper service. The court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements for adverse possession under the Limitation of Actions Act and was entitled to be registered as the absolute owner of the land. The court declined to award costs, noting the familial relationship between the parties.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; plaintiff to be registered as absolute owner; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The plaintiff be registered absolute owner of Land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by way of adverse possession.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 135 OF 2009
JOSEPH MUTHURI IKUNYUA........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MWITERI KINYUA & 3 OTHERS..........DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
The suit was brought by way of Originating Summons. It urges the court to make the following determinations:
Whether the plaintiff can be deprived from his (sic) developed land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 after a stay of more than 20 years without any interference from the defendants.
Whether the plaintiff can be registered the absolute owner of Land title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by way of adverse possession for stay of more than 20 years by virtue of section 4 (4) of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap.22 Laws of Kenya?
Whether defendants are conspiring to defraud the plaintiff's land Title No NTIMA/IGOKI 5219 By using this Hon. Court after a stay of more than 20 years against Limitation of Actions Cap 22 (Laws of Kenya)?
In paragraph 4 of the Originating Summons, the plaintiff says:
4. “The subject matter arises out in the meaning of uttering of false documents herein by the defendants and criminal offence has been committed the same (sic).”
The plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against the defendants in the following terms:-
Plaintiff be registered the absolute owner of Land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by adverse possession.
Any other benefits this Hon. Court may deem fit to grant.
Costs of the suit.
During the hearing of the suit, the defendants were not present. An affidavit of service showing that they were aware of today's hearing date had been duly filed in court.
The plaintiff complained that the defendants were in the habit of refusing to come to court even after proper service had been effected. He prayed for the orders he seeks in this suit.
I answer the questions posed by the plaintiff as follows:
Question 1 – The plaintiff can not be deprived of his developed land Title NO. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 after a stay of more than 20 years without any interference from the defendants.
Question 2 – The defendant can be registered owner of land Title No. Ntima/Igoki/5219 by way of adverse possession.
I do not understand what is being conveyed in question 3.
I grant the following orders:
1. That the plaintiff be registered absolute owner of Land Title No. NTIMA/IGOKI/5219 by way of adverse possession.
2. As this is a matter involving brothers, I award no costs to the plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 8th day of October, 2014 in the presence of:
Cc Daniel/Lilian
Joseph Muthuri, Plaintiff, Present
Defendants Absent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE