[2010] KEHC 3808 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 3808 (KLR)

The applicant's entry and continued occupation of the suit premises was with the express consent of the deceased owner, making him a licensee rather than a trespasser. Time for adverse possession did not begin to run until the owner's death and the subsequent registration of the property in the respondent's name. Further, the running of time was interrupted by the filing of previous suits concerning the same subject matter. By the time the current suit was filed, the applicant had not occupied the land adversely for the statutory period of 12 years. Therefore, the applicant failed to establish the requirements for adverse possession and was not entitled to the orders sought.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 3808 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lukas Maina Mugo; Defendant: Tabitha Muthoni
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 January 2010
Case Number
Civil Case 238 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Title, Licensee Vs Trespasser
Source Language
English
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Title Licensee Vs Trespasser

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lukas Maina Mugo

Plaintiff

Tabitha Muthoni

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has acquired title to ½ of Loc.18/Gachocho/377 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's occupation was adverse or permissive (licensee).
  3. 3 Whether the statutory period for adverse possession had run before filing the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's entry and continued occupation of the suit premises was with the express consent of the deceased owner, making him a licensee rather than a trespasser. Time for adverse possession did not begin to run until the owner's death and the subsequent registration of the property in the respondent's name. Further, the running of time was interrupted by the filing of previous suits concerning the same subject matter. By the time the current suit was filed, the applicant had not occupied the land adversely for the statutory period of 12 years. Therefore, the applicant failed to establish the requirements for adverse possession and was not entitled to the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • The Originating Summons is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.