Stephen Parmois Leshao v Joseph Njeru Karanja & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4164 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A man who openly lived on and farmed land for over 25 years won ownership through adverse possession, even after new owners registered it in 2001.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff proved continuous, open and peaceful occupation of the suit land for the statutory period
The Plaintiff's evidence of occupation for over 25 years was uncontroverted and unchallenged as the Defendants did not enter appearance or file defences, and the court found he had occupied the suit land for over 25 years.
The Defendants were served but failed to file defences, so the suit proceeded undefended. The Plaintiff testified that he had lived on the land continuously for 25 years, developed parcels 132 and 162, constructed houses, and produced official searches and a caution. The court found this evidence uncontroverted and unchallenged and sufficient to prove occupation on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the Defendants' registration in 2001 interrupted the Plaintiff's adverse possession
The Defendants' failure to assert or claim their rights, and the subsequent registration of the land, did not interrupt or defeat the Plaintiff's adverse possession, consistent with Githu v Ndetta.
The court applied the principle in Githu v Ndetta that a mere change of ownership of land occupied by another under adverse possession does not interrupt the possession. Although the Defendants caused the land to be registered in their names in 2001, they never took possession and never challenged the Plaintiff's occupation, so their rights were extinguished by effluxion of time.
Legal principles established
#- A change in the registered ownership of land occupied by a person in adverse possession does not interrupt that person's adverse possession
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the Defendants' right to recover the suit land Trans Mara/Moiyoi/122,125,132,162 is barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the title is extinguished
- 2.The Deputy Registrar of the court to execute transfer instruments and all attendant documents to facilitate transfer and registration of LR parcels Trans Mara Moyoi/122,125,132 and 162 in favour of the Plaintiff in default of the Defendants executing the same
- 3.Costs to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 37 Rules 7 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stephen Parmois Leshao v Joseph Njeru Karanja & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4164 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Cause No. 316 of 2017 (Formerly Kisii ELC No. 37 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4164/eng@2018-03-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.