[2012] KEHC 5426 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 5426 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff entered into possession of NANDI/KAPTICH/357 on 27th June 1982 pursuant to a sale agreement that was void ab initio due to lack of letters of administration and Land Control Board consent. Despite the void sale, the plaintiff's possession became adverse from the date of entry. The court held that the plaintiff's occupation was open, continuous, and uninterrupted for over twelve years, as required by Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court rejected the defendant's argument that succession and tribunal proceedings or letters constituted interruption, citing established case law that only effective steps by the registered proprietor, such as...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 5426 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kipketer Togom; Defendant: Isaac Cipriano Shingore
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 June 2012
Case Number
Civil Suit 128 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Originating Summons for Adverse Possession
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; plaintiff to be registered as proprietor; defendant's title extinguished; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Interruption of Possession
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Registration Interruption of Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kipketer Togom

Plaintiff

Isaac Cipriano Shingore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Ruling on Originating Summons for Adverse Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to land parcel NANDI/KAPTICH/357 by adverse possession under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 What constitutes interruption of possession for purposes of adverse possession.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be registered as proprietor of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff entered into possession of NANDI/KAPTICH/357 on 27th June 1982 pursuant to a sale agreement that was void ab initio due to lack of letters of administration and Land Control Board consent. Despite the void sale, the plaintiff's possession became adverse from the date of entry. The court held that the plaintiff's occupation was open, continuous, and uninterrupted for over twelve years, as required by Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court rejected the defendant's argument that succession and tribunal proceedings or letters constituted interruption, citing established case law that only effective steps by the registered proprietor, such as...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for adverse possession allowed; plaintiff to be registered as proprietor; defendant's title extinguished; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff has acquired title over NANDI/KAPTICH/357 by way of adverse possession.
  • The plaintiff is entitled under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act to be registered as proprietor of NANDI/KAPTICH/357.