[2015] KEELC 409 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 409 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicants had established, through uncontested evidence, that they had occupied and developed the suit property continuously, peacefully, exclusively, and in a manner adverse to the Respondent's interests for more than twelve years. The Respondent did not contest the claim, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 409 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mbarak Abdalla Abud; Applicant: Mbarak Awadhi Omar; Applicant: Answar Salim Mohamed; Respondent: Saleh Bin Abdalla Shuruti
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 29 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
originating summons allowed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Title Registration, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Land Title Registration Ownership Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbarak Abdalla Abud

Applicant

Mbarak Awadhi Omar

Applicant

Answar Salim Mohamed

Applicant

Saleh Bin Abdalla Shuruti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants have acquired title to sub-division number 224/III/MN by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants' occupation of the suit property has been continuous, peaceful, exclusive, and adverse for at least twelve years.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants had established, through uncontested evidence, that they had occupied and developed the suit property continuously, peacefully, exclusively, and in a manner adverse to the Respondent's interests for more than twelve years. The Respondent did not contest the claim, and the Applicants' evidence was corroborated by a letter from the Assistant Chief. The court held that the Applicants had dispossessed the Respondent and met the legal requirements for adverse possession under the Limitation of Actions Act. Consequently, the Applicants were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the suit property as tenants in common in equal shares.

Court Disposition

originating summons allowed

Orders

  • A declaration is made that the Applicants are entitled to sub-division number 224/III/MN by virtue of adverse possession.
  • The Chief Land Registrar is directed to register sub-division number 224/III/MN in favour of the three Applicants as tenants in common with equal shares and issue a Certificate of Title to them.