Orita Kemunto Obara v Hamisi Omari Boge [2018] KEELC 86 (KLR)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 86
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 86 (KLR)
- Decided
- 16 May 2018
Summary at a glance
TypeAdverse PossessionPostureOriginal TrialCoramG.M.A. Ongondo
The court finds that the plaintiff has acquired an absolute and indefeasible title to the suit land by adverse possession and orders the defendant to transfer the land to the plaintiff.
Facts
The plaintiff, Orita Kemunto Obara, claims adverse possession of land parcel No. Suna East/Wasweta 1/3325, which is a sub-division of land parcel No. Suna East/Wasweta 1/2997. She bought the land from deceased Ochieng Orwa in 1974 and has been in possession and occupation of it uninterruptedly since then.
Issues
- Has the plaintiff been in open and uninterrupted occupation of the land for more than 12 years?
- Has the plaintiff acquired title to the land by adverse possession?
- Can the defendant be compelled to transfer the land to the plaintiff?
Reasoning
The court considers the plaintiff's continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land since 1974, the defendant's failure to rectify the anomaly, and the plaintiff's proof of adverse possession. The court finds that the defendant's possession was open and notorious, and the plaintiff has notice of all matters.
Outcome
In favor of the plaintiff
Orders
- A declaration that the plaintiff has acquired by adverse possession an absolute and indefeasible title to the suit land.
- A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to an order under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act to be registered as an absolute and indefeasible owner of the suit land.
- A declaration that the defendant holds the suit land in trust for the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff shall have costs of the suit.
Remedies
- Transfer of the suit land to the plaintiff
- Registration of the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land
- Entry of the plaintiff's name in the land register
Authorities cited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…