Hadev Kalsi Singh v Ilam Din S/O Umar Din & 4 Others [2015] KEELRC 534 (KLR)
- Court
- Employment & Labour Relations Court
- Case number
- 534
- Citation
- [2015] KEELRC 534 (KLR)
The Court finds that the Applicant has been in actual, open, and exclusive occupation of the suit property for a period of more than 12 years, and his occupation was not permissive.
Facts
The Applicant, Hadev Kalsi Singh, moved into the suit property in 1987 and sought to prove adverse possession. The 5th Respondent, Mohamed Azhar, claimed the Applicant was a tenant and that his occupation was permissive.
Issues
- Whether adverse possession of the suit property by the Applicant has been proved on a balance of probabilities.
- Whether the Applicant's occupation was permissive.
Reasoning
The Court determined that the Applicant's possession was continuous and without the consent of any co-owners, and that the 5th Respondent's actions to reassert his rights did not stop the running of time.
Outcome
The Court dismissed the suit, finding that the Applicant did not prove adverse possession and that his occupation was not continuous.
Orders
- The suit property should not be registered in the Applicant's name because he did not prove adverse possession for 12 years.
- The Applicant should bear the costs of the summons.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Limitation of Actions Act
- Limitation of Actions Act
Cases cited (4)
- Wilson Kazungu Katana & 101 others vs. Salim Abdalla Bakshwein & anothe, Malindi CA No. 11 of 2014
- Githu vs. Ndete (1984) KLR 776
- Baber Alibhai Mawji vs. Sultan Hasham Lalji and Green Fields Investments Limited Nairobi CA No. 269 of 2001
- Samuel Miki Waweru -vs- Jane Njeri Richu (2007) eKLR
Loading judgment…