[2022] KEELC 599 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 599 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they had been in open, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. The defendant, having failed to contest the claim, did not rebut the evidence of adverse possession. The court further held...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 599 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zamaladi Kafuko Yusuf; Plaintiff: James Okulo Ouko; Plaintiff: Sadat Odiwuor Ouko; Plaintiff: Peter Obola Ouko; Plaintiff: Torika Bukusa Ouko; Plaintiff: Benard Ndegi Ouko; Plaintiff: Jared Otieno Ouko; Plaintiff: Faraji Muhammed Ouko; Plaintiff: Nicholas Ochieng Ouko; Defendant: Joyce Mbuya Oruko
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 28 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Adverse Possession, Limitation of Actions, Customary Trusts
Source Language
en
Land and Property Adverse Possession Limitation of Actions Customary Trusts

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zamaladi Kafuko Yusuf

Plaintiff

James Okulo Ouko

Plaintiff

Sadat Odiwuor Ouko

Plaintiff

Peter Obola Ouko

Plaintiff

Torika Bukusa Ouko

Plaintiff

Benard Ndegi Ouko

Plaintiff

Jared Otieno Ouko

Plaintiff

Faraji Muhammed Ouko

Plaintiff

Nicholas Ochieng Ouko

Plaintiff

Joyce Mbuya Oruko

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have acquired prescriptive rights over land parcel KISUMU/NYALENDA 'B'/922 by way of adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the registration of the defendant was subject to a trust in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' occupation was open, continuous, and uninterrupted for the statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established, on a balance of probabilities, that they had been in open, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. The defendant, having failed to contest the claim, did not rebut the evidence of adverse possession. The court further held that the registration of the defendant was either subject to a trust in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor or was obtained through fraudulent means, but in either case, the plaintiffs' long, uninterrupted occupation entitled them to the land by adverse possession. The statutory period for the defendant to reclaim the land had lapsed, and the plaintiffs were entitled to be...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • The plaintiffs are declared to have acquired prescriptive rights over parcel of land number KISUMU/NYALENDA 'B'/922 by way of adverse possession.
  • The defendant is ordered to sign transfer and consent to transfer forms in favour of the plaintiffs, failing which the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court shall sign them.