Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Kenya decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court struck out an adverse possession claim, holding that the lease had expired and reverted to the City County of Nairobi, so the claim was not maintainable.
The court dismissed an adverse possession claim over Nairobi/Block 263/1105 and 1106, holding time did not run for 12 years after prior litigation and a 2006 eviction judgment.
The court allowed a transfer application, holding that the magistrate’s court lacked jurisdiction over the adverse possession claim and the suit should proceed in the Environment and Land Court.
Olang’ v Chimba & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E048 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5352 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court struck out an adverse possession suit and interim injunction application, holding the matter was an abusive attempt to relitigate issues already determined.
Otieno v Nyakongo (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E023 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5365 (KLR) (31 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court dismissed an injunction and stay application as a collateral attempt to halt execution of an existing eviction decree, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Nyanumba v Rotich & another (Land Case E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5310 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiff could not obtain ownership or adverse possession because the suit land formed part of a deceased estate and the 1st Defendant and his siblings had no legal capacity to sell it without a succession process and confirmed grant. The allegedly transferred title to the 2nd Defendant was therefore unlawfully procured, but adverse possession could not sanitize a fraudulent title. Since the 1st Defendant admitted receiving the purchase price, equity required restitution, so the proper remedy was a full refund of the purchase price with costs and interest from judgment until payment in f…
Source excerpt
Muturi & another v Wandere (Environment and Land Appeal 20 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5346 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the trial court correctly found res judicata: the former suit concerned the same parcel of land, the same substantive dispute over title and alleged fraud, was determined on the merits by a competent court, and the appellants were litigating under the same title for purposes of the estate claim. The later addition of adverse possession and a second appellant did not defeat the statutory bar, since the claim could and should have been raised earlier.
Source excerpt
Githinji & 2 others v Gakuru (Environment and Land Case 472 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5348 (KLR) (19 August 2026) (Judgment)
The Plaintiffs failed to prove uninterrupted and continuous adverse possession for twelve years because the Defendant asserted his proprietary rights through fencing the land and multiple court proceedings over the disputed parcel. Those proceedings interrupted any alleged running time, so the statutory period necessary to mature title by adverse possession did not accrue in the Plaintiffs' favor.
Source excerpt
Muchomba & 2 others v Kirugura (Land Case Appeal E009 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5319 (KLR) (17 August 2026) (Judgment)
The appeal failed because the appellants pursued adverse possession in a court that lacked jurisdiction, so their claim could not succeed there; they also failed to plead constructive trust, making that ground unavailable. The respondent proved valid registration and entitlement to injunctive protection, and there was no legal basis to disturb the trial court's judgment.
Source excerpt
Gachuhi v Kamonjoh & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E179 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 5289 (KLR) (14 August 2026) (Ruling)
The court held that the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties were not necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute. The Plaintiff failed to establish any nexus between them and the suit properties, and the evidence showed that their former title LR No. 14970/90 was distinct from LR Nos. 1490/90 and 1490/96. Their joinder was unnecessary, so their names were struck out.
Source excerpt
Explore more
