Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Cause No. 409 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru ELC Cause No. 186 of 2012)· [2019] KEELC 2279 (KLR)

Miriam Maritim v Margaret W. Ngugi [2019] KEELC 2279 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 July 2019
MKMohammed Kullow
1,216 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Miriam Maritim, brought an Originating Summons under Sections 27 and 28 and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, and Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking registration as proprietor of approximately 3.7 acres of land parcel Cis Mara/Ololulunga/171, later sub-divided and registered as Cis Mara/Ololulunga/12649 in the Defendant's name. She claimed she purchased the portion in 1995 from Daniel Ngugi, the Defendant's deceased husband, paid the consideration by instalments, and has been in continuous, open and notorious occupation and development of the land for over 12 years. The Defendant, the widow and administrator of the deceased, denied knowledge of any sale agreement, alleged forgery, contended the family was displaced during the 1998 clashes, and asserted the Plaintiff occupied only about an acre without authority. The matter proceeded by viva voce evidence after directions, with each party testifying and calling a witness. The court found the Plaintiff's evidence of purchase uncontroverted, and that her continuous occupation, boundary demarcation and development for over 12 years, coupled with the Defendant's failure to claim the land or attempt eviction, amounted to notorious possession that ousted and dispossessed the registered owner. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff: she was ordered registered as lawful owner by adverse possession, the Defendant was to transfer the 3.7 acres within 30 days, failing which the Deputy Registrar to effect the transfer, with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff proved adverse possession of the 3.7-acre portion

Holding

Yes - the Plaintiff purchased the portion from the Defendant's deceased husband, was shown the boundaries, occupied continuously for over 12 years, and developed the land; her possession was adequate, continuous and adverse to the registered owner

Reasoning

The court found the Plaintiff's evidence of purchase from the deceased husband uncontroverted. She moved onto the identified portion, fenced its boundaries, occupied and developed it for over 12 years without the registered owner laying claim or attempting eviction. Payment of the purchase price and continuous notorious possession dispossessed and ousted the Defendant, extinguishing her claim and entitling the Plaintiff to registration.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Purchase of land coupled with continuous, notorious occupation and development for over 12 years amounts to adverse possession that extinguishes the registered owner's claim
  • Possession must be notorious and the registered owner's inaction (failure to claim or evict) supports a finding of adverse possession

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to be registered as the lawful and bona fide owner by way of adverse possession
  3. 3.The Defendant to transfer the portion measuring 3.7 acres to the Plaintiff within 30 days, and in default the Deputy Registrar of the court to effect the transfer
  4. 4.Costs awarded to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 27, 28, 38
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 rules 7 and 8
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 and Order 37 rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (adverse possession claim under Sections 37 and 38)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Miriam Maritim v Margaret W. Ngugi [2019] KEELC 2279 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Cause No. 409 of 2017 (Formerly Nakuru ELC Cause No. 186 of 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2279/eng@2019-07-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.