SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Ruth Wangari Kanyagia v Josephine Muthoni Kinyanjui [2017] KECA 771 (KLR)

[2017] KECA 771 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
771
Citation
[2017] KECA 771 (KLR)
Decided
17 February 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Sitati, J.) dated 19th March, 2010 H. C. C. C. No. 636 of 2006CoramP. Kihara Kariuki, P. N. Wakii, P. O. Kiage
Holding

We allow the appeal and set aside the decree and orders issued by the High Court. We substitute therefor an order that the Originating Summons dated and filed on 20th June, 2006 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Facts

Ruth Wangari Kanyagia and Josephine Muthoni Kinyanjui are landowners. Josephine occupied a portion of plot 1832 in 1972 and continued to do so after subdivision to create plot 6563. Ruth sought Josephine's eviction in 2004.

Issues

  1. Whether Josephine's occupation of the land was with Ruth's consent and permission.
  2. Whether Josephine's occupation was hostile and adverse to Ruth's title and authority over the land.

Reasoning

The occupation was with Ruth's consent and permission, and there was no non-permissive, hostile or adverse use of the property. The trial court did not evaluate evidence showing Ruth's consent.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, decree and orders set aside, Originating Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Originating Summons dated and filed on 20th June, 2006 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (5)
  • J. A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd & Another vs The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber Application No. 44302 of 2002
  • State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kumar & Others [2012] AIR SCW 276
  • Mtana Lewa vs Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi [2015] eKLR
  • Limitation of Actions Act
  • Karnataka Board of Wakf vs Government of India & Others (2004) 10 SCC 779
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case