[2012] KEHC 3185 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant had remained on the suit land since 1969, his occupation was not peaceful or uncontested. The respondents and their father had consistently resisted his claim, and an eviction order had been issued against him, with the matter of eviction still pending in court. As a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3185 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Thomas Kirui Chebusi; Respondent: Peter Wanjala Kangala; Respondent: Richard Masika Kangala; Respondent: Nyongesa Kangala; Respondent: John Machimbo Kangala
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 24 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Judgment
- Outcome
- claim dismissed
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Registered Land, Eviction Orders
- 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
Thomas Kirui Chebusi
Applicant
Peter Wanjala Kangala
Respondent
Richard Masika Kangala
Respondent
Nyongesa Kangala
Respondent
John Machimbo Kangala
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has acquired title to land parcel Elgon/Namorio/348 by adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the applicant's occupation of the suit land was peaceful, open, and continuous for the statutory period required for adverse possession.
- 3 Whether time for adverse possession could run in the face of persistent resistance and pending eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant had remained on the suit land since 1969, his occupation was not peaceful or uncontested. The respondents and their father had consistently resisted his claim, and an eviction order had been issued against him, with the matter of eviction still pending in court. As a result, the statutory period for adverse possession had not begun to run, since the applicant's possession was not adverse in the legal sense required by law. The applicant therefore failed to meet the threshold for adverse possession, and his claim was dismissed.
Court Disposition
claim dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's claim for adverse possession is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL SUIT 24 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF LIMITATION OF ACTIONS CAP 22 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF REGISTERED LAND ACT CAP 300 LAWS OF KENYA
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCEL NO.ELGON/NAMORIO/348
AND
IN THE MATTER OF ADVERSE POSSESSION
BETWEEN
THOMAS KIRUI CHEBUSI....................................................................................... APPLICANT
~VRS~
PETER WANJALA KANGALA......................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
RICHARD MASIKA KANGALA....................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
NYONGESA KANGALA...............................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
JOHN MACHIMBO KANGALA..................................................................4TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The Applicant entered into agreement with Kangala Embuchi on 9/10/1969 in which he was buying the latter’s land parcel number Elgon/Namorio.348 for ksh.5,500/=. The transaction did not receive the blessings of the Land Control Board. The High court in Kangala Embuchi v. Thomas Kirui Chebus Civil Appeal no.54 of 1986 at Kakamega and the Court of Appeal in Thomas Kirui Chebus v. Kangala Embochi, Civil Appeal no.121 of 1988 at Kisumu found that the transaction became null and void for all purposes. These appeals arose from Bungoma Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Civil Case no.121 “B” of 1984 in which he had sued Kangala Embuchi for the specific performance of the contract. The trial court found in his favour but the two higher courts found against him.
Kangala Embuchi is the father of the Respondents. He subsequently transferred the suit land to them. In the present suit brought by way of originating summons the Applicant sought a declaration that he had become entitled to the suit land by adverse possession because he had since 24/4/1987 been living thereon in a manner that has extinguished the Respondents’ claim to it. The Respondents swore a replying affidavit to oppose the claim and to state that the Applicant has been living on the suit land in the face of these suits and in the face of efforts to have him evicted. They exhibited an eviction order issued on 28/4/1992 by the High Court at Kakamega. The Respondents state that the Applicant has persistently refused to vacate from the suit land. He has sought stay and the matter is still pending. These averments were not challenged by the Applicant.
The Applicant testified in this case and called two witnesses PW2 Ndiema Chesonge and PW3 Benson Masai to say that he bought the suit land in 1969 from Kangala Embochi and since then he has been living thereon with his family.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Respondents and their father have been resisting the Applicant’s claim to the suit land, and that there is an order to have him evicted therefrom. His stay on the land may have been continuous, but has not been peaceful. The matter relating to his eviction is still pending in court to date. The Respondents are resisting his claim to the land, and therefore time for the purposes of adverse possession has not begun to run.
This claim has, therefore, no merit and is dismissed. The Respondents did not attend the hearing and shall not get costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Bungoma this 12th day of July 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE