Peter Ndungunya Ole Sono & 2 others v Lands Limited & another [2019] KEELC 569 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court voided hundreds of Ol Jorai land titles as fraudulent, dismissed community ownership claims, and confirmed Solai Ruyobei Farm as the rightful owner of LR No. 20229/1.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the Ole Osono Group's alleged acquisition of LR No. 20229/1
No sale or allocation to the Ole Osono Group was proved; the alleged Kshs. 10 Million receipt was a forgery and they never obtained title
The court found the receipt to be a cash-sale receipt lacking any description of the transaction, inconsistent with a payment of that magnitude to a state corporation, unsupported by a sale agreement or correspondence, and undated consistently with the claimed allocation. ADC's records showed the land was sold to Solai Ruyobei for Kshs. 24,000,000/= with title passing on 8 December 1995. The plaintiffs therefore never acquired any proprietary interest.
Validity of the Kiambogo/Kiambogo Block 3 sub-plot titles and RIMs
All sub-plot titles and the associated RIMs are fraudulent, fake, and null and void ab initio
The sub-plots were purportedly created from parcels (LR No. 9581 and 10242) that had already ceased to exist following the amalgamation that produced LR No. 20229, and the mother title LR No. 20229/1 was never surrendered and was in court custody at the material time. The survey and registration processes were tainted, with officials issuing titles and RIMs without authenticating the source parcel.
Adverse possession claim by the Ole Osono Group
Claim fails as 12 years had not elapsed from 8 December 1995, when ADC's title passed to Solai Ruyobei
Since ADC was a state corporation under the Agricultural Development Corporation Act, time for adverse possession could not run against it and only commenced on transfer of title to Solai Ruyobei on 8 December 1995. The suit filed on 9 May 2007 fell short of the statutory 12-year period, and subsequent occupation was contested and under litigation.
Whether the Ms. Munka Group properly brought a representative suit and proved adverse possession
The representative suit was improperly constituted, and the elements of adverse possession were not proved
No proof of registration or composition of the Ol Jorai Community was tendered; no application or advertisement under Order 1 Rule 8; no authority to sue under Order 4 Rule 1(3). Ms. Munka gave no evidence of when possession began, the acreage occupied, developments made, or when animus possidendi developed, and the four other named applicants did not testify.
Legal principles established
#- To sustain a claim for adverse possession, a claimant must prove open, peaceful, quiet, continuous and uninterrupted possession for 12 years with animus possidendi
- Time does not run for adverse possession while land is registered in the name of the Government or a Government/state corporation; time runs only after title moves from the Government
- A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 requires notice to the persons represented, by personal service or public advertisement, and the persons to benefit must be identified
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that LR No. 20229/1 has never been lawfully subdivided and remains intact, with title registered in the name of Solai Ruyobei Farm Limited
- 2.Declaration that the titles Kiambogo/Kiambogo Block 3/1-3320 (Ol Jorai Company Limited) or (Ol Jorai Farm) are fraudulent titles and null and void ab initio
- 3.Declaration that any other title claimed to have been derived from LR No. 20229/1 is a fraudulent title, null and void ab initio
- 4.Order that the Chief Land Registrar and District Land Registrar Naivasha expunge from their records the titles Kiambogo/Kiambogo Block 3/1-3320 and any other title purporting to derive from a subdivision of LR No. 20229/1
- 5.Declaration that the purported RIMs for Kiambogo/Kiambogo Block 3 are fraudulent and null and void ab initio
- 6.Order that the Director of Surveys expunge the said RIMs and any related maps or deed plans
- 7.Dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit in Nakuru HCCC No. 87 of 2007 with costs
- 8.Dismissal of the applicants' case in Nakuru ELC No. 89 of 2013 with costs
- 9.Declaration that the rightful proprietor of LR No. 20229/1 is Solai Ruyobei Farm Limited, at liberty to apply for eviction and/or deal with the land as it wishes
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court established under Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; suits transferred from the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Ndungunya Ole Sono & 2 others v Lands Limited & another [2019] KEELC 569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Nakuru HCCC No. 87 of 2007 (Consolidated with Nakuru ELC No. 89 of 2013, formerly Nakuru HCCC No. 379 of 2012 (OS)). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/569/eng@2019-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.