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

Wachira v Wagura (Environment & Land Case 1 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 13529 (KLR) (6 October 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELC 13529 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
13529
Citation
[2022] KEELC 13529 (KLR)
Decided
6 October 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAdverse PossessionPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramYM ANGIMA
Holding

The court finds that the applicant has proved her claim for adverse possession of Parcel 1809, but not for Parcel 1810.

Facts

The applicant, Wachira, claimed adverse possession of two parcels of land (1809 and 1810) registered under the name of the respondent, Wagura. Wachira claimed she had been in possession since 1977, while Wagura claimed she had leased out Parcel 1810.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has proved her claim for adverse possession of the suit properties.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit.
  3. Who shall bear costs of the suit.

Reasoning

The court found that the applicant had been in possession of Parcel 1809 since 1977 without Wagura's permission, and had continuously utilized the land as if it were her own. The court did not find evidence of possession for Parcel 1810.

Outcome

The court granted the applicant a declaration of adverse possession for Parcel 1809 and awarded costs.

Orders

  • Declaration of adverse possession for Parcel 1809
  • Award of costs to the applicant

Remedies

  • Declaration of adverse possession for Parcel 1809
  • Award of costs to the applicant

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (2)
  • Kasuve v Mwaani Investments Ltd & 4 Others [2004] I KLR 184
  • Chevron (K) Ltd v Harrison Charo Wa shutu [2010] eKLR
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