[2000] KEHC 377 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 377 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land was not adverse to the defendant's title, as it was based on an agreement and with the defendant's consent. Furthermore, the defendant only became the registered proprietor in 1994, and time for adverse possession could not run before that date. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] KEHC 377 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Murugami GichembE; Defendant: Gunda GichembE
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1258 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Trusts in Land, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Land Registration Trusts in Land Limitation of Actions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murugami GichembE

Plaintiff

Gunda GichembE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be registered as proprietor of five acres out of LR NO. KIGANJO/HANDEGE/934 by virtue of adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land was adverse to the defendant's title and interest.
  3. 3 When time for adverse possession began to run against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land was not adverse to the defendant's title, as it was based on an agreement and with the defendant's consent. Furthermore, the defendant only became the registered proprietor in 1994, and time for adverse possession could not run before that date. The plaintiff could not claim adverse possession against his own title or against a non-existent person. As such, the requirements for adverse possession were not met, and the plaintiff's claim failed.

Court Disposition

plaintiff's suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendant.