[2018] KECA 597 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 597 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to prove exclusive and continuous possession of an identifiable 125-acre portion of the suit land for the statutory period required for adverse possession. The evidence showed that the land was not demarcated to separate the respondents' claimed share from that of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KECA 597 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Susan Moss; Respondent: Silas Siele Stephen; Respondent: David Sisimwo Stephen
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 69 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Judges
AM Githinji, GG Okwengu, A Mohammed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Succession and Administration, Land Disputes, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Succession and Administration Land Disputes Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Susan Moss

Appellant

Silas Siele Stephen

Respondent

David Sisimwo Stephen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents proved exclusive and continuous possession of 125 acres by adverse possession for the statutory period.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' entry and occupation of the land was adverse or permissive under a lease or sale agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the portion claimed by the respondents was identifiable and exclusively possessed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to prove exclusive and continuous possession of an identifiable 125-acre portion of the suit land for the statutory period required for adverse possession. The evidence showed that the land was not demarcated to separate the respondents' claimed share from that of other group members, and there was no proof of exclusive occupation. The respondents' entry was through their father, who claimed under a disputed sale agreement and a court decree, not as trespassers or adverse possessors. After their father's death, the respondents' possession was as personal representatives, not in their own right. The court further found that adverse...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The judgment and decree of the Environment and Land Court are set aside.