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

Ombidi v Omollo (Environment & Land Case 32 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 13839 (KLR) (31 October 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELC 13839 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
13839
Citation
[2022] KEELC 13839 (KLR)
Decided
31 October 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAdverse PossessionPostureAppeal from a lower court decisionCoramGMA ONGONDO
Holding

The court found that the plaintiff has not established adverse possession over the land.

Facts

The plaintiff, Paul Juma Ombidi, filed a suit claiming adverse possession over land reference number Gem/Kajulu/49, approximately 1.24 hectares in area. The defendant, Bernard Odhiambo Omollo, registered the land in his name. The plaintiff claims adverse possession for more than 12 years.

Issues

  1. The parcel of land must be registered in the name of a person other than the applicant.
  2. The applicant must be in open and exclusive possession of that piece of land in an adverse manner to the title of the owner.
  3. The applicant must be in that occupation for a period in excess of twelve years having dispossessed the owner or there having been discontinuance of possession by the owner.

Reasoning

The court noted that the land was registered in the defendant's name, and the plaintiff has not provided evidence of adverse possession for more than 12 years.

Outcome

The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession is dismissed.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Limitations of Actions Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Galaxy Paints Co Ltd vs Falcon Grounds Ltd (2000) 2 EA 385
  • Muthuita vs Wanoe & 2 others (2008) 1KLR (G&F) 1024
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