[2011] KEHC 98 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 98 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff did not occupy the suit land in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years. The period from 1982 to 1988 was under the ownership of the deceased, and after the transfer to the defendant in 1988, the defendant filed an eviction suit in 1994, which interrupted any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 98 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sylvanus Bwosi Songore; Defendant: Christopher Mukhanji Litali
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 66 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation Periods, Title to Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation Periods Title to Land

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvanus Bwosi Songore

Plaintiff

Christopher Mukhanji Litali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff acquired title to 3 acres of land parcel No. Isukha/Lubao/2037 by adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's possession was continuous and adverse for the required period under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not occupy the suit land in adverse possession for the statutory period of 12 years. The period from 1982 to 1988 was under the ownership of the deceased, and after the transfer to the defendant in 1988, the defendant filed an eviction suit in 1994, which interrupted any running of time for adverse possession. The court held that at no point did the plaintiff's adverse possession reach the required 12 years against any registered owner. The plaintiff failed to address the issue of the prescription period in his submissions. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to be registered as the owner of the land by virtue of...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.