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
Momanyi v Ponda & 2 others [2025] KEELC 3373 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court at Malindi allowed an adverse possession claim over two parcels in Mtwapa, ordering registration of the applicant as proprietor.
Kazungu & 2 others v Ali [2025] KEELC 1479 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court at Malindi held that the applicants proved adverse possession over plot 83 of Group 1 Kilifi and ordered title to issue to them.
Mahuthu & 2 others v Muhiu [2024] KEELC 13379 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiffs had been in open, exclusive, and continuous occupation and use of a portion of LR. No. Konyu/Gachuku/466 for a period exceeding the statutory 12 years required for adverse possession. The Defendant's own evidence, including his affidavit and cross-examination, acknowledged the Plaintiffs' use of the disputed portion and referenced historical disputes over boundaries involving the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's predecessor in title. The court accepted the joint report by the County Surveyor and Land Registrar, which confirmed the disputed portion measured 0.…
Source excerpt
Mvita v Muluvi & another [2024] KEELC 13283 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court dismissed a claim that an extra acre was fraudulently transferred, finding the plaintiff failed to prove fraud or undue influence.
Ongaga v Nyakundi & 4 others [2024] KEELC 5789 (KLR)
The court partly allowed a land dispute: the 1st plaintiff succeeded in adverse possession, while the 3rd plaintiff failed and was ordered evicted.
Kimani & 2 others (Suing on behalf and as representatives of Halleluiyah Gospel Church Karuri) v Chege & another [2024] KEELC 4739 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had been in open, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 2001, exceeding the statutory 12-year period required for adverse possession. The alleged permission to occupy the land was given by Wakaya, who was not the registered owner, and thus did not negate the adverse nature of the plaintiffs' possession. The litigation in the Land Dispute Tribunal and Environment & Land Court did not involve the plaintiffs directly and was not initiated by the registered owner to recover possession; therefore, it did not interrupt the running of time…
Source excerpt
Lutta v Olunga [2024] KEELC 3481 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed an adverse possession claim over 2.5 acres, finding the occupation remained contractual and not hostile.
Ologi v Hassanali & another [2024] KEELC 1712 (KLR)
The court found that while the plaintiff claimed to have occupied the suit land since 2005, there was insufficient evidence to prove that her occupation was known to the registered owners or that it was on the specific parcel in question. The chief's letter referenced a different parcel number, and there was no clear evidence linking the developments shown in the photographs to Kisumu/Municipality Block 8/472. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof required for adverse possession, as credible evidence of open, continuous, and exclusive occupation of the specific land, known to…
Source excerpt
Mburugu & 6 others v County Government of Meru [2023] KEELC 22399 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court dismissed an appeal over alleged ownership of plots carved from public land, holding the appellants failed to prove a lawful chain of title.
Josiah & another v Wathumi [2023] KEELC 22081 (KLR)
The court granted adverse possession orders to the first applicant over land parcel Komothai/Kibichoi/T.138, but rejected the second applicant’s independent claim.
Explore more
