Abdul Nassir Salim Naaman v Kassim Maona [2014] KEELC 117 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner with a title certificate won eviction because the occupier could not prove 12 years' continuous occupation or a valid purchase.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant proved adverse possession
The claim failed; the Defendant was inconsistent on his date of entry (1950s in the Defence, 1980 in cross-examination) and no evidence of 12 years' continuous, exclusive and peaceful occupation was adduced
The Defendant pleaded entry in the 1950s but, confronted with evidence that he was only seven years old in 1950, changed his account to 1980. He later abandoned adverse possession and alleged purchase instead. Without cogent proof of uninterrupted, exclusive and peaceful occupation for the statutory period, the claim could not stand against the registered proprietor.
Whether the Defendant purchased the suit property from the Plaintiff's mother
The purchase claim was not proved; the receipts produced did not show what payments were for and no agency by Mtwapa Properties Ltd was established
The receipts issued by Mtwapa Properties Ltd between 1986 and 1991 referred to parcel 539/III/MN and varied between Kshs.500 and 2,000 but did not indicate what the payments were for. The court could not tell whether they were for ground rent or purchase, and there was no evidence that the company was contracted by the Plaintiff's late mother to collect money on her behalf.
Whether the Plaintiff as registered proprietor was entitled to eviction and injunction
Yes; the Plaintiff proved registration on 18th May 2004 and, the Defendant having failed to establish a superior claim, the suit was allowed
The Plaintiff produced a certificate of title showing registration in his favour on 18th May 2004. The Defendant's competing claims of purchase and adverse possession both failed on the evidence, leaving the Plaintiff's proprietorship unchallenged. Eviction and a permanent injunction followed, with costs to the Plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- A party claiming adverse possession must prove continuous, exclusive and peaceful occupation of the land for at least 12 years
- A registered proprietor of land is entitled to it against a party who has not established a superior claim
Court orders
#- 1.An eviction order issued against the Defendant, his agents, heirs or workers or anybody authorized by him from plot subdivision number 4098, CR No. 29412/16 (original number 3141/53) Section III Mainland North
- 2.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, servants, heirs or employees from continuing to intimidate or harass the Plaintiff or his workers or purchasers
- 3.The Defendant to pay the costs of the suit
- 4.The Defendant's Counterclaim dated 12th July 2010 dismissed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over disputes relating to title to and occupation of land (first-instance civil suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdul Nassir Salim Naaman v Kassim Maona [2014] KEELC 117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). ELC Civil Case No. 51 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/117/eng@2014-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.