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

Stephen Were Obwogo v Haggai Ngamia Nyarotso [2018] KEELC 2154 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2154 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
2154
Citation
[2018] KEELC 2154 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAdverse PossessionPostureApplication for Adverse PossessionCoramKneller, Sergon
Holding

The court finds that the applicant has established his homestead on the said parcel of land and has been in open, peaceful, uninterrupted and continuous occupation thereof for more than 12 years. The court grants a declaration that the defendant’s sole proprietary interests in the said land have been extinguished by virtue of the applicant’s adverse possession of the same.

Facts

The applicant, Stephen Were Obwogo, claims continuous and uninterrupted possession of L.R. No. South Wanga/Musanda/479, registered in the name of the respondent, Haggai Ngamia Nyarotso, for more than 12 years.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is the registered proprietor of L.R. No. South Wanga/Musanda/479
  2. Whether the applicant has been a permanent resident upon the said parcel of land
  3. Whether the residence of the applicant upon the parcel of land in excess of 12 years and in an open, peaceful and uninterrupted manner
  4. Whether the residence of the applicant upon the parcel of land has been adverse to the proprietary interests of the respondent and other proprietors before him
  5. When did time necessary to constitute adverse possession in favour of the applicant begin to run
  6. Whether having been in possession and use of the parcel of land in a peaceful and open manner for a period in excess of 12 years, whether the applicant has acquired ownership of the same through prescription
  7. Whether the proprietorship of the respondent with respect to the parcel of land is subject to the prescriptive rights of the applicant

Reasoning

The court applied the principles of adverse possession, including the requirement of continuous and uninterrupted possession, and found that the applicant had met these criteria. The court also considered the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act.

Outcome

In favor of the applicant

Orders

  • A declaration that the defendant’s sole proprietary interests in the said land have been extinguished by virtue of the applicant’s adverse possession of the same.
  • That the defendant execute all subdivision and transfer documents of a portion of land parcel No. South Wanga/Musanda/479 occupied by the applicant.
  • That costs be borne by the defendant.

Remedies

  • Declaration of adverse possession
  • Execution of subdivision and transfer documents

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 of the Laws of Kenya
  • Land Registration Act, No 3 of 2012
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Cases cited (3)
  • Francis Gicharu Kariri v Peter Njoroge Mairu, Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2002 (Nairobi)
  • Kimani Ruchire v Swift Rutherfords & Co. Ltd. (1980) KLR 10
  • Ann Itumbi Kiseli v James Muriuki Muriithi [2013] eKLR Malindi Environment and Land Court Case No 163 of 2012
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case