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

Joshua Nyamache Omasire v Charles Kinanga Maena [2019] KECA 33 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 33 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
33
Citation
[2019] KECA 33 (KLR)
Decided
30 December 2019
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypecivilPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High CourtCoramJ. Mohammed, D. Musinga, Githinji
Holding

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was the rightful owner of the disputed portion of land, as the appellant failed to prove that there was an error in the measurements of his land.

Facts

The appellant claims to have been allocated the suit property by Settlement Fund Trustees in 1964, measuring approximately 10.9 hectares. He alleges that the respondent filed a complaint in 1986 claiming ownership of the disputed portion, which was erroneously indicated as part of the respondent's land Gesima Settlement Scheme/59. The appellant returned a faulty title deed and was issued a new one indicating the correct measurement of 10.9 hectares.

Issues

  1. whether the respondent's claim was statute barred
  2. who is the owner of the disputed portion of land

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claim was statute barred due to lack of evidence of adverse possession. The court also found that the respondent was the rightful owner of the disputed portion based on the evidence of the 1982 area list and the 1988 transfer and discharge of charge from SFT.

Outcome

Affirmed

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Evidence Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Abok James Odera T/A A.J Odera & Associates v. John Patrick Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates (2013) eKLR
  • Kenya Ports Authority v. Kuston (Kenya) Limited (2009) 2 EA 212
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