Japheth Lijoodi v Clement Shikami & another [2021] KEELC 2501 (KLR)
- Court
- Environment & Land Court
- Case number
- 2501
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 2501 (KLR)
- Decided
- 21 July 2021
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand Adverse PossessionPostureApplication for determination of title and adverse possessionCoramN.A. Matheka
Holding
The plaintiff has not established continuous possession for 12 years, thus the plaintiff's case on adverse possession is dismissed.
Facts
The plaintiff, Japheth Lijoodi, claims to have acquired title to two parcels of land (Isukha/Shinyalu/1590 and Isukha/Shinyalu/1591) by adverse possession. He alleges continuous possession since 1992, while the defendants claim adverse possession and ownership. The land was subdivided in 2009.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has acquired title to the parcels by adverse possession.
- Whether the defendants hold title to the parcels in trust for the plaintiff.
- Whether the title of the first defendant got extinguished before 2009.
- Whether the first defendant had any good title to transfer the parcels to the second defendant.
- Whether the second defendant's title should be cancelled and the parcels registered in the plaintiff's name.
- Whether the second defendant should be ordered to transfer the parcels to the plaintiff.
- Whether the respondents should be condemned in the costs
Reasoning
The court found that the plaintiff's possession was not continuous and not uninterrupted for 12 years, as evidenced by the defendants' evidence of the plaintiff's use of the land on and off until 2009.
Outcome
The plaintiff's application for adverse possession is dismissed.
Orders
- The plaintiff's application for adverse possession is dismissed.
- The plaintiff's case on adverse possession is dismissed with costs.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Land Registration Act
- Limitation of Actions Act
Cases cited (2)
- Francis Gicharu Kariri v Peter Njoroge Mairu
- Kimani Ruchire v Swift Rutherfords & Co. Ltd.
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.
Loading judgment…