[2018] KEELC 4259 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff's claim was unopposed and she provided evidence of occupation and use of the land, the green card indicated that a portion of the land had been compulsorily acquired by the government. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the land she occupied was available for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 4259 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Martha Ncubiri Muga; Defendant: Muthamia Ramara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 115 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Judgment
- Outcome
- plaintiff's claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Compulsory Acquisition
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Martha Ncubiri Muga
Plaintiff
Muthamia Ramara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to parcel L.R Igoji/Gikui/280 by way of adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the defendant is the actual registered owner of the suit land at the material time.
- 3 Whether the compulsory acquisition by the government affected the plaintiff's claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff's claim was unopposed and she provided evidence of occupation and use of the land, the green card indicated that a portion of the land had been compulsorily acquired by the government. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the land she occupied was available for acquisition and that the defendant remained the registered owner of the suit land. As a result, the essential requirement for adverse possession—that the defendant is the registered owner—was not satisfied. The uncertainty regarding ownership and the effect of the compulsory acquisition undermined the plaintiff's claim, leading to its dismissal.
Court Disposition
plaintiff's claim dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC NO. 115 OF 2013 (OS)
MARTHA NCUBIRI MUGA..............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUTHAMIA RAMARA..................................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. Vide a plaint filed on 29. 4.2013, plaintiff has sued defendant claiming that she is entitled to parcel of land No. L.R Igoji/Gikui/280 by way of adverse possession.
2. The case was not defended.
3. Plaintiff testified that defendant sold the suit land to her in 1983. She moved into the land and built a house, a permanent one. She then planted coffee and banana crops.
4. In support of her claim, plaintiff produced a green card as P Exhibit 1 to show who owns the suit land.
5. The plaintiff’s claim remains uncontroverted as defendant did not defend the suit.
6. However, there is a hitch in that the copy of green card availed by plaintiff shows that the suit land is 0. 37 ha and was registered in the name of defendant on 15. 2.1984 but there was compulsory acquisition by the Kenya government of 0. 466 ha, vide a Kenya gazette notice of 3013 dated 3. 10. 80. The entry for date of acquisition is 31. 1.1985.
7. The plaintiff hence ought to have adduced evidence to show that there was land available for acquisition by her.
8. A claim for adverse possession will only succeed if the claimant shows that defendant is the actual registered owner of the suit land. In the present case, this is not certain.
9. In the circumstances plaintiff’s claim is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 7th MARCH, 2018
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
Plaintiff present
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE