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

RAVJI KARSANI SANHANI vs PETER GAKUNU [2002] KEHC 1068 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 1068 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1068
Citation
[2002] KEHC 1068 (KLR)
Decided
10 April 2002
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAdverse PossessionPostureAppeal from a lower court decisionCoramK.H. RAWAL
Holding

The Plaintiff is entitled to the interim prayers he seeks, and the application is allowed.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Ravji Karsani Sanhani, claims adverse possession of a piece of land (L.R. 209/11091) registered under the Registration of Titles Act. He has been in occupation since 1979 and has developed the land. The Defendant, Peter Gakunu, received a title deed in 1990, but only claimed his rights in 2000.

Issues

  1. When did the Defendant become the proprietor of the suit land?

Reasoning

The Plaintiff has shown prima facie that he is in occupation of the suit land since 1979 and has developed it. The Defendant's claim is based on a title deed issued in 1990, but he only claimed his rights in 2000. The balance of convenience is in favor of the Plaintiff.

Outcome

The Plaintiff's application is allowed.

Orders

  • Allow the application dated 25th May, 2001 in terms of prayer 2 thereof.

Remedies

  • The Plaintiff is restrained from eviction, demolition, transfer, or disposal of the suit land.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Registration of Titles Act (Cap. 281)
Cases cited (4)
  • Geila -vs- Cassman Brothers & Company Ltd. [1973] E.A. 358
  • Dr. Joseph N.K. Arap Ng’ok –vs- Justice Moijo Ole Keiwua & 4 others Court of Appeal (Nairobi) 60/97 (unreported)
  • Wreck Motor enterprises –vs- The Commissioner of Land & 3 Others Civil appeal 71 of 1997 (Unreported)
  • Mulinyi Hannish Ali –vs- The Attorney General & Another. Civil Appeal No.125/92 (Unreported)
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case