https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2986
The court held that the applicant entered the land under a sale agreement, which made his possession permissive rather than adverse, and no termination of that permission was pleaded or shown. The respondents’ earlier suit also interrupted any alleged quiet occupation. The originating summons therefore disclosed no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 2986 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant/plaintiff: John Gichuhi Mbuthiua; 1st Defendant/respondent: Mary Wangechi Ngure; 2nd Defendant/respondent: John Kariuki Ngure
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Originating Summons; Adverse Possession Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Suit struck out with costs to the respondents.
- Judges
- ["JM Kamau"]
- Legal Topics
- Originating Summons, Preliminary Objection, Striking Out Suit, Permissive Possession, Interruption of Possession, Limitation of Actions
- 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
John Gichuhi Mbuthiua
Applicant/plaintiff
Mary Wangechi Ngure
1st Defendant/respondent
John Kariuki Ngure
2nd Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Originating Summons; Adverse Possession Claim / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant’s entry under a sale agreement could found adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection disclosed a pure point of law warranting striking out of the suit.
- 3 Whether the applicant had shown uninterrupted possession for the statutory period required for adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant entered the land under a sale agreement, which made his possession permissive rather than adverse, and no termination of that permission was pleaded or shown. The respondents’ earlier suit also interrupted any alleged quiet occupation. The originating summons therefore disclosed no cause of action and was struck out with costs.
Court Disposition
Suit struck out with costs to the respondents.
Orders
- The originating summons is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Mbuthiua v Ngure & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2986 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2986 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E012 of 2025 JM Kamau, J May 20, 2026 Between John Gichuhi Mbuthiua Plaintiff and Mary Wangechi Ngure 1st Defendant John Kariuki Ngure 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.The Applicant filed this suit by way of an Originating Summons dated 9/10/2025 for adverse possession urging the Court for orders of: - 1.A Declaration that the Plaintiff has acquired Title to 2 Acres comprised of parcel No. Nyandarua/Ol-Joro-Orok Salient/679 having been in open, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation of the said portion of land for over 12 years. 2.That the Land Registrar do register the Applicant as proprietor of 2 Acres out of land parcel No. Nyandarua/Ol-Joro-Orok Salient/679, in place of the Respondents. 3.An order directing the District Land Surveyor to visit the land, survey, demarcate 2 Acres out of Nyandarua/Ol-Joro-Orok Salient/679 being the portion the Applicant occupies. 4.Costs of the suit. 2.In the grounds in support of the Summons on the face of the Application and in the Affidavit in support of the same sworn on 9/10/2025, John Gichuhi Mbuthia, the Applicant, says that he purchased 2 Acres out of land parcel No. Nyandarua/Ol-Joro-Orok Salient/679 from one Simon Ngure Wambugu Respondent’s himself as the beneficial owner in 2001. But that he later realized that the land belonged to Joyce Gathigia Ngure after persistently urging Wambugu to transfer the land to him. Wambugu had bought the land but registered the same in his daughter’s (Joyce’s) name. He then took possession of the land in 2003 and started cultivating the land and has therefore been in open, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted occupation of the land. 3.Mary Wangechi and John Kariuki Ngure are the children of Joyce Gathigia Ngure. The Applicant urges that he instituted Nyahururu PMCC No 297 of 2005 seeking to compel Simon Ngure to transfer the land to him but the former died before the matter was finalized. He also says that the Defendants filed Nyahururu CMELC No. 75 of 2022 seeking injunctive orders for trespass and nuisance, as it that is still pending hearing and determination. 4.The Respondents filed a Preliminary Objection to the Originating summons on 29/1/2026 on the grounds that: -1.The Applicant urged that he entered the suit premises by way of a sale agreement in 2001 with Simon Ngure Wambugu who was not the registered owner of the suit land.2.The claimed possession based on a land sale agreement is permissive in nature and cannot in law form the basis of adverse possession until the said permission is expressly terminated which termination has not been pleaded or demonstrated.3.The alleged occupation from 2003 is incapable of grounding a claim of adverse possession. The registered proprietor having been Deceased and there being no legal representative until 2014. 5.I asked the parties to file written submissions which I have considered before retiring to write this Ruling. 6.Striking out a suit is such a draconian step and should be resorted to in a very clear and obvious case. In this case, it is distinctly clear that the Applicant entered the suit premises by way of a sale agreement in 2001 with Simon Ngure Wambugu. The claimed possession based on a sale agreement is therefore permissive in nature which permission was never terminated to pave way for the start of computing time for adverse possession. Further, Nyahururu CMELC No. 75 of 2022 by the Defendants seeking injunctive orders for trespass and nuisance amounted to interruption of the quiet possession or occupation, if any. Accordingly, this Suit lacks in cause of action and is hereby struck out with costs. RULING READ AND DELIVERED AT NYANDARUA THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026.MUGO KAMAUJUDGEIn the Presence of: -Court Assistant: Samson.Appellants’ Counsel: Ms. MachariaRespondent’s Counsel: Mr. Ojare