[2009] KEHC 792 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 792 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had been in open, uninterrupted, and adverse possession of the respective plots for periods exceeding twelve years. Their evidence was uncontroverted, and the registered owners had taken no steps to assert their rights or evict the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 792 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohamed Mambo; Plaintiff: Juma Kimbirwa; Plaintiff: Suleiman Mwawali; Plaintiff: Juma Bugu; Defendant: Richard Livingstone Hawkins; Defendant: John Edward Leslie; Defendant: Orbit Developers Limited; Defendant: Bhupinder Singh Knowle; Defendant: Gurbux Singh Nagi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 197 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs declared proprietors of the suit properties by adverse possession; ordered registration as proprietors; no order as to costs.
Judges
JV Juma
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Title, Uninterrupted Possession, Registration of Land, Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Land Title Uninterrupted Possession Registration of Land 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

Mohamed Mambo

Plaintiff

Juma Kimbirwa

Plaintiff

Suleiman Mwawali

Plaintiff

Juma Bugu

Plaintiff

Richard Livingstone Hawkins

Defendant

John Edward Leslie

Defendant

Orbit Developers Limited

Defendant

Bhupinder Singh Knowle

Defendant

Gurbux Singh Nagi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have acquired ownership of the suit properties by way of adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' occupation was open, uninterrupted, and adverse to the interests of the registered owners.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the suit properties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had been in open, uninterrupted, and adverse possession of the respective plots for periods exceeding twelve years. Their evidence was uncontroverted, and the registered owners had taken no steps to assert their rights or evict the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the legal requirements for adverse possession and were entitled to be declared proprietors of the suit properties. The court granted the prayers sought in the amended originating summons and ordered that the plaintiffs be registered as proprietors of the respective plots they occupied.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs declared proprietors of the suit properties by adverse possession; ordered registration as proprietors; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are declared proprietors of the suit properties by way of adverse possession.
  • The plaintiffs shall be registered as proprietors of the respective plots: 1st Plaintiff - Plot No. 102; 2nd Plaintiff - Plot No. 993; 3rd Plaintiff - Plot No. 104; 4th Plaintiff - Plot No. 103.