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

Osika v Wanjara (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Doris Anyango Wanjara) (Environment & Land Case 9 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4144 (KLR) (29 May 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELC 4144 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
4144
Citation
[2025] KEELC 4144 (KLR)
Decided
29 May 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramE ASATI
Holding

The Court held that the Plaintiff has had adverse possession of the suit land for a period exceeding 12 years.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Vincent Ochieng Osika, claims adverse possession of land registered in the name of his step-mother, Doris Anyango Wanjara. The Plaintiff alleges continuous possession since 1952, while the Defendant, Samuel Akeno Wanjara, claims his mother moved from the land in 1960.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff has had adverse possession of the suit land.
  2. Whether the Defendant's title to the suit land has been extinguished by operation of the law.

Reasoning

The Court applied the elements of adverse possession as per section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, finding that the Plaintiff's possession was open, notorious, peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted.

Outcome

The Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled by way of adverse possession to ownership and exclusive use of the suit land.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Limitation of Actions Act 2012
  • Land Registration Act 2012
  • Land Act 2012
Cases cited (3)
  • Mbira v Gachuhi 2002 I E.A LR 137
  • Kasuve v Mwaani Investments Ltd & Others 2004 I KLR 184
  • Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi 2005 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