[2022] KEELC 13828 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 13828 (KLR)

The applicant failed to prove the essential elements of adverse possession. Although he claimed to have entered the suit property in March 2006 and remained there for over 12 years, he did not specify the nature of his possession or whether the respondent was aware of it. The evidence presented, including...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 13828 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Kiplagat Koima; Respondent: Hasham Lalji Propertis Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 32 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Burden of Proof, Fraudulent Claims
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Land Registration Burden of Proof Fraudulent Claims

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Kiplagat Koima

Applicant

Hasham Lalji Propertis Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has acquired LR No. Eldoret Municipality Block 9/26 by way of adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's occupation of the suit property meets the legal requirements for adverse possession under Kenyan law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has dispossessed the respondent or the respondent has discontinued possession of the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove the essential elements of adverse possession. Although he claimed to have entered the suit property in March 2006 and remained there for over 12 years, he did not specify the nature of his possession or whether the respondent was aware of it. The evidence presented, including photographs, did not demonstrate exclusive or adverse possession, but rather suggested the presence of a caretaker's house and ongoing management by the respondent or its agents. Furthermore, the existence of active litigation concerning the property and the appointment of a receiver manager indicated that the respondent had not been dispossessed nor had discontinued possession. The...

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's claim for adverse possession is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.