[2018] KEHC 7284 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 7284 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had been in open, peaceful, and continuous possession of the disputed 4 Ha portion of LR NO. SOUTH KARACHUONYO/KAMENYA/1498 for a period exceeding 12 years. The defendant did not deny the plaintiff's claim and, through a consent order, agreed to judgment in favour of the plaintiff....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 7284 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hon. Phoebe Asiyo; Defendant: Harrison Aseto Kola (deceased, sued as legal administrator of Kola Nyakinda, deceased)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 839 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
judgment entered for the plaintiff by consent
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Land Registration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Land Registration

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hon. Phoebe Asiyo

Plaintiff

Harrison Aseto Kola (deceased, sued as legal administrator of Kola Nyakinda, deceased)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to a portion of LR NO. SOUTH KARACHUONYO/KAMENYA/1498 by adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's right to recover the land is barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be registered as proprietor of the 4 Ha portion of the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had been in open, peaceful, and continuous possession of the disputed 4 Ha portion of LR NO. SOUTH KARACHUONYO/KAMENYA/1498 for a period exceeding 12 years. The defendant did not deny the plaintiff's claim and, through a consent order, agreed to judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff had acquired prescriptive rights under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and was entitled to be registered as proprietor of the portion. The consent judgment was adopted, and the orders sought by the plaintiff were granted, in line with the principles of alternative dispute resolution and the need to promote settlement of disputes by...

Court Disposition

judgment entered for the plaintiff by consent

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff in terms of prayers 1, 2, and 3 of the originating summons dated 29/7/2017.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.