[2011] KEHC 3410 (KLR)
The court held that while the Plaintiff had obtained a decree entitling her to 1.5 acres of land by adverse possession, the application for execution of transfer forms could not be granted as prayed because the Plaintiff failed to specify which of the subdivided parcels comprised the 1.5 acres in question. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3410 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sarah C. Ruto; Defendant: Francis Cheruiyot; Defendant: Richard Cheruiyot; Defendant: Wilson Cheruiyot
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 21 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application
- Outcome
- Application declined pending specification of the relevant parcel(s) by the Plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Land Registration, Enforcement of Judgments, Transfer of Land
- 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
Sarah C. Ruto
Plaintiff
Francis Cheruiyot
Defendant
Richard Cheruiyot
Defendant
Wilson Cheruiyot
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the transfer of 1.5 acres comprised in the subdivided parcels of Kericho/Kapsuser/236 by virtue of adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the court can order execution of transfer forms in favour of the Plaintiff without clear identification of the specific parcel(s) constituting the 1.5 acres awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while the Plaintiff had obtained a decree entitling her to 1.5 acres of land by adverse possession, the application for execution of transfer forms could not be granted as prayed because the Plaintiff failed to specify which of the subdivided parcels comprised the 1.5 acres in question. The court emphasized that for an order of transfer to be enforceable, the specific land parcel(s) must be clearly identified. The lack of clarity as to which of the four resultant parcels (Kericho/Kapsuser/4381, 4382, 4383, and 4384) constitute the 1.5 acres rendered the judgment and decree vague and incapable of enforcement. The Plaintiff was directed to specify the relevant parcel(s)...
Court Disposition
Application declined pending specification of the relevant parcel(s) by the Plaintiff.
Orders
- The Plaintiff/Applicant is directed to specify the title(s) in which the 1.5 acres is comprised to facilitate the making of the orders sought.
- No order as to costs at this stage.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CIVIL CASE NO. 21 OF 2007 (O.S)
SARAH C. RUTO …………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FRANCIS CHERUIYOT ……………………………….. 1ST DEFENDANT
RICHARD CHERUIYOT ……………………………….2ND DEFENDANT
WILSON CHERUIYOT …………………………………3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff/Applicant, Sara C. Ruto, seeks in her Notice of Motion dated 27th October, 2010 orders that the Defendants/Respondents “do execute at their own cost transfer forms in her favour to effect transfer to her of 1. 5 acres comprised in the titles Nos. Kericho/Kapsuser/4381, 4382, 4383 and 4384being the resultant titles upon subdivision of Kericho/Kapsuser/236 or in the alternative, the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable court do execute mutation and transfer forms on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents”.
The Plaintiff has a decree in her favour in this suit in which the court (the Hon. Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa) declared that she is “entitled to 1. 5 acres comprised in the title No. Kericho/Kapsuser/236” which has been subdivided into four portions known as Kericho/Kapsuser/4381, 4382, 4383 and 4384. The award of 1. 5 acres was premised on adverse possession.
It was averred by the Plaintiff/Applicant that the four portions are now registered in the names of the Defendants but it was not made clear which title number/s relates to the 1. 5 acres land occupied by the Plaintiff.
The judgment delivered by the Hon. Lady Justice Mary Ang’awa on March 10th, 2010 states in the germane part at para 15 thus
“I would find that a claim of adverse possession had been reestablished. I grant the Plaintiff/Applicant her prayers with the costs to the Applicant/Plaintiff”.
The prayers granted by the Court were contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Originating Summons dated 9th March, 2007. These prayers were
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to 1. 5 acres of land comprised in the land parcel L.R. NO. KERICHO/KAPSUSER/236 subdivided into parcel Nos. 4381,4382,4383 and 4384) formerly owned by the late Kibet Korir (deceased) by virtue of the Plaintiff’s adverse possession of the said parcel in open, quiet and peaceful occupation for a period of almost 35 years.
2. Whether the titles resultant from the subdivision of LR. NO. KERICHO/KAPSUSER/236 should be cancelled in order to pave way for excision and transfer of the 1. 5 acres currently occupied by the Plaintiff.
3. Whether the Plaintiff herein should be registered as proprietor of the said 1. 5 acres in place of the Defendants who are at present the registered owners/proprietors of the said parcel of land.
4. That costs of this suit be provided for.
The original parcel No. Kericho/Kapsuser/236 measured 1. 6 hectares or 3. 952 acres. The claim for adverse possession related to 1. 5 acres which the Plaintiff/Applicant averred she had occupied for over twelve (12) years. It is not clear which subdivided portion of plot Kericho/Kapsuser/236 comprises the 1. 5 acres, nor is it clear what the acreage of each of the four (4) subdivided portions is. In these circumstance, and bearing in mind that the portion of 1. 5 acres that should be transferred to the Plaintiff/applicant is the one whose title has been extinguished by adverse possession, it is necessary that the Plaintiff/Applicant specifies the title/s in which the 1. 5 acres is comprised so as to facilitate the making of the orders sought. This aspect should have been dealt with at the trial stage so as to make the judgment and the decree less vague and capable of enforcement. Unless the Plaintiff/Applicant specifies this, the order sought cannot be given as prayed for.
DATED at KERICHO this 21st day of February, 2011
G.B.M. KARIUKI, SC
RESIDENT JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mr. W.R. Kiprono Advocate for the Respondent
Mrs. J.R. Kimeto Advocate for the Applicant