[2024] KEELC 7329 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 7329 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant had been in continuous, open, exclusive, and notorious possession of Laikipia/Uaso Narok B/681 since 2001, having settled on the land after being shown it by government surveyors. Despite the Respondent's and her predecessor's knowledge of the Applicant's occupation, no effective legal action was taken to recover the land until 2021. The court held that the attempts to have the Applicant vacate, including administrative reports and requests, did not amount to effective interruption under the Limitation of Actions Act. The twelve-year period for adverse possession thus ran uninterrupted from 2005, when the Respondent and her predecessor became aware of...

Citation
[2024] KEELC 7329 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Akudi Lukuyinmoe Longolan; Respondent: Velonicah Nyambura Gitonga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E017 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
judgment_for_applicant
Judges
AK Bor
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration, Title Extinguishment
Source Language
English
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Registration Title Extinguishment

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akudi Lukuyinmoe Longolan

Applicant

Velonicah Nyambura Gitonga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant has acquired title to Laikipia/Uaso Narok B/681 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's occupation was continuous, open, exclusive, and without the permission of the registered owner for at least twelve years.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's actions or litigation interrupted the running of time for adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant had been in continuous, open, exclusive, and notorious possession of Laikipia/Uaso Narok B/681 since 2001, having settled on the land after being shown it by government surveyors. Despite the Respondent's and her predecessor's knowledge of the Applicant's occupation, no effective legal action was taken to recover the land until 2021. The court held that the attempts to have the Applicant vacate, including administrative reports and requests, did not amount to effective interruption under the Limitation of Actions Act. The twelve-year period for adverse possession thus ran uninterrupted from 2005, when the Respondent and her predecessor became aware of...

Court Disposition

judgment_for_applicant

Orders

  • A declaration is issued that the Applicant is entitled by virtue of adverse possession to be registered as proprietor of Laikipia/Uaso Narok B/681 measuring 1.05 hectares.
  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to execute documents to facilitate the Applicant’s registration as proprietor of Laikipia/Uaso Narok B/681.