[2022] KEELC 3042 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 3042 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants' occupation of the suit land was with the express permission of the original owner, their grandfather, who showed them their respective portions. Such permissive occupation does not meet the threshold for adverse possession, which requires non-permissive, open, and continuous...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 3042 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Zakayo Mwangi; Applicant: Mary Wanjiku; Applicant: Nancy Wanjiru; Applicant: Catherine Nyakio; Applicant: Peter Kariuki; Respondent: Jane Wainoi Kinyua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 29 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed with costs
Judges
EC Cherono
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Succession Disputes, Land Registration, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Succession Disputes Land Registration 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.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zakayo Mwangi

Applicant

Mary Wanjiku

Applicant

Nancy Wanjiru

Applicant

Catherine Nyakio

Applicant

Peter Kariuki

Applicant

Jane Wainoi Kinyua

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have acquired title to land parcel Mutira/Kaguyu/5671 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' occupation of the suit land was non-permissive and adverse to the interests of the registered owner.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to be registered as proprietors of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' occupation of the suit land was with the express permission of the original owner, their grandfather, who showed them their respective portions. Such permissive occupation does not meet the threshold for adverse possession, which requires non-permissive, open, and continuous occupation adverse to the interests of the true owner. Furthermore, the land was lawfully distributed through a succession cause, and the applicants did not challenge or appeal that judgment. Their claim for adverse possession was therefore without merit, as their possession was not adverse but permissive, and the registered owner’s title was not extinguished. The court dismissed...

Court Disposition

claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The applicants' claim for adverse possession is dismissed with costs to the respondent.