[2018] KEELC 4407 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4407 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had established, through uncontroverted affidavit evidence, that she had been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession and use of the suit property for over twenty years, with the knowledge of the Defendant and without interruption. The Defendant, despite being served, did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4407 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Marietta Mbula Munyao; Defendant: Phyllis Ndululu Katiti
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 228 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's Originating Summons allowed as prayed.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Title to Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Title to Land

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marietta Mbula Munyao

Plaintiff

Phyllis Ndululu Katiti

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff has acquired ownership of L.R. No. 12715/281 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a vesting order and transfer of title for the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the statutory requirements for adverse possession under Kenyan law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had established, through uncontroverted affidavit evidence, that she had been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession and use of the suit property for over twenty years, with the knowledge of the Defendant and without interruption. The Defendant, despite being served, did not contest the claim. The Plaintiff's occupation satisfied the requirements of adverse possession as set out in Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court held that the Plaintiff had acquired title to the land by adverse possession and was entitled to a vesting order and transfer of title in her favour.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Originating Summons allowed as prayed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff is entitled to ownership of L.R. No. 12715/281 by virtue of adverse possession and a vesting order is issued in her favour.
  • The parcel of land known as L.R. No. 12715/281 is to be transferred to the Plaintiff.