Karima v Kenya Airways Limited (Civil Appeal E015 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1966 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled you cannot claim land ownership through long occupation where the occupier admitted the owner's title and the clock was reset.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the deceased acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession before his death
- 2.Whether the occupation of the land between 1983 and 1994 can be considered for purposes of adverse possession
- 3.Whether the respondent effectively interrupted the possession through eviction and demolition
- 4.Whether written acknowledgments by the deceased extinguished or reset the period for adverse possession
Key legal issues
#Whether adverse possession can run against government land
No. Section 41(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars acquisition by adverse possession of land in the possession of the Government. Time could only begin to run when the suit land was alienated and a Certificate of Title issued to the respondent on 4th July 1994.
The deceased entered occupation in 1983, when the land was unalienated public land held by the Government of Kenya. Section 41(1)(a) expressly excludes such land from acquisition by adverse possession. The Court followed Sammy Mwangangi, holding that a claim for adverse possession can only be maintained against a registered owner and not against public land. Accordingly, the statutory clock could not begin until alienation and issuance of the Certificate of Title to the respondent, a private entity, on 4th July 1994.
Whether the respondent's entry, eviction and demolition effectively interrupted possession
Yes. The notice to vacate of 26th August 2006 and the demolition and eviction of 18th October 2006 constituted an effective entry interrupting time.
Citing Mwangi Githu vs Livingstone Ndeete, the Court applied the rule that time ceases to run when the owner takes legal proceedings or makes an effective entry into the land. The respondent's notice, demolition of structures, eviction of squatters including the deceased, erection of a perimeter fence and deployment of guards amounted to an effective re-assertion of dominion, interrupting the deceased's possession.
The legal effect of the deceased's written acknowledgments of the respondent's title
The acknowledgments in the letters of 18th and 19th October 2006 extinguished any period accrued before that date and reset the limitation period under Section 24 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Applying Benson Mukuwa Wachira, the Court held that an acknowledgment by the trespasser, made before twelve years have run, that he is on the land with the owner's permission or consent interrupts and resets time. The deceased's letters acknowledged that his house had been demolished, that the respondent held title, and requested a reward for watching over the plot. A fresh 12-year period could only begin on 18th October 2006, and the suit filed in March 2016 fell short.
Whether the deceased's possession satisfied the qualitative elements of adverse possession
No. The correspondence showed the deceased negotiated and pleaded with the respondent while acknowledging its ownership, negating hostile possession and animus possidendi; the eviction, fencing and guards defeated exclusivity and continuity.
Adverse possession requires possession that is adverse, actual, open and notorious, without force, exclusive, and continuous and uninterrupted for twelve years, as distilled in Andafu vs Akhulunya and Mtana Lewa. The deceased's letters seeking permission, reward and accommodation showed possession in recognition of the respondent's title rather than adverse to it. The respondent's re-entry and physical measures disrupted any claim to exclusive or continuous possession.
Legal principles established
#- Adverse possession cannot run against land still held by the Government; the limitation clock begins only upon alienation and issuance of title to a private entity
- Time under the Limitation of Actions Act ceases to run either when the owner takes legal proceedings or makes an effective entry into the land
- A trespasser's acknowledgment of the owner's title, made before twelve years have run, resets the limitation period; an acknowledgment after the period has run and title has crystallised does not
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate, re-assess and re-analyse the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 34(4) invoked following the death of a member of the bench before delivery of judgment)
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the ELC judgment dated 31st January 2023 and declaration of title by adverse possession on behalf of the deceased
Time for adverse possession could not run before 4th July 1994 while the land was government land; possession was effectively interrupted on 18th October 2006 by eviction, demolition and the deceased's written acknowledgment of the respondent's title; even a fresh period from that date fell short of 12 years by the filing of the suit in 2016
Costs of the appeal and of the superior court to be paid by the respondent
Costs follow the event; the appellant lost
Costs
As costs follow the event, the costs of this appeal are awarded to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Adverse possession cannot run against government land. In Sammy Mwangangi & 10 others vs Commissioner of Lands & 3 Others [2018] KECA 800 (KLR)
Time ceases to run under the Limitation of Actions Act either when the owner takes legal proceedings or makes an effective entry into the land.
Accordingly, any period that had accrued prior to 18th October 2006 was extinguished by the deceased's express acknowledgment of the respondent's title. A fresh 12-year period could only begin from that date.
Consequently, we find that the appellant failed to meet the statutory threshold for adverse possession. The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
As costs follow the event, the costs of this appeal are awarded to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment recites that the Hon. Mr. Justice Fred Ochieng, JA died before delivery, and the judgment was delivered by the remaining two members under Rule 34(4); the bench listing accordingly shows only two signature blocks, yet the appeal was heard before his death
Internal numbering of paragraphs in the quoted extract from Sammy Mwangangi restarts at 34/35, and the quoted extract from Andafu vs Akhulunya also repeats numbering, creating apparent duplication in the official text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karima v Kenya Airways Limited (Civil Appeal E015 of 2023) [2025] KECA 1966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Court of Appeal, Mombasa (appeal against ELC judgment dated 31st January 2023, Originating Summons dated 8th March 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1966/eng@2025-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.