[2019] KEELC 3774 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3774 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the essential element of non-permissive, hostile, or adverse occupation of the suit land. The evidence indicated that any occupation by the plaintiffs was with the tacit permission of their brothers, the registered owners, as part of a family arrangement. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3774 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Stellah Nduru Ichunge; Plaintiff: Esther Karimi Ichunge; Defendant: Ezekiel Nkamani M’Ichunge; Defendant: Silas M’Ikirima M’Ichunge
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 111 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
plaintiffs' suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Family Land Disputes, Limitation of Actions, Ownership Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Family Land Disputes Limitation of Actions Ownership Rights

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

Stellah Nduru Ichunge

Plaintiff

Esther Karimi Ichunge

Plaintiff

Ezekiel Nkamani M’Ichunge

Defendant

Silas M’Ikirima M’Ichunge

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title to 1.5 acres of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the essential element of non-permissive, hostile, or adverse occupation of the suit land. The evidence indicated that any occupation by the plaintiffs was with the tacit permission of their brothers, the registered owners, as part of a family arrangement. The court held that acts done under license or with the owner's permission do not constitute adverse possession. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' periods of absence and the nature of their occupation did not meet the threshold for exclusive and continuous possession required by law. As a result, the plaintiffs' claim for adverse possession could not succeed.

Court Disposition

plaintiffs' suit dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.