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

Stephen Njaci Mirara v Jacinta Wambui Waruimbo & another [2019] KEELC 1017 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1017 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1017
Citation
[2019] KEELC 1017 (KLR)
Decided
31 October 2019
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAdverse PossessionPostureAppeal from the original trialCoramS. Okongo
The court finds the applicant’s claim against the first respondent merited, but not against the second respondent. The court declares the applicant acquired adverse possession of the land and orders the first respondent to transfer a portion of the land to the applicant.

Facts

The applicant claimed adverse possession of a portion of land measuring 0.022 hectares, while the respondents disputed his ownership. The applicant alleged he purchased the land from the second respondent in 2001 and had occupied it for over 12 years. The first respondent claimed she purchased the land from Nyakinyua Investments Limited and had issued the applicant a share certificate.

Issues

  • Whether the applicant acquired adverse possession of the land
  • Ownership of the land

Reasoning

The court found the applicant had occupied the land openly and continuously for over 12 years without the first respondent's permission, and performed acts inconsistent with the first respondent's rights.

Outcome

Judgment for the applicant against the first respondent, dismissing the claim against the second respondent.

Orders

  • Transfer of a portion of the land to the applicant
  • Permanent injunction against the first respondent
  • Costs to be borne by the parties

Remedies

  • Subdivision and transfer of the land
  • Execution of the transfer by the Deputy Registrar
⚠ 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.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case