Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedOriginating Summons dated 6/6/07 (NTIMA/IGOKI/1964)· [2019] KEELC 3885 (KLR)

Meru Central Farmers Cooperative Union v Ruth Igoki Rintari & another [2019] KEELC 3885 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 April 2019
JKJ. G. Kemei
4,424 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a farmers' co-operative full ownership of land it occupied for over 30 years, ruling the original owners' title had expired through adverse possession.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, Meru Central Farmers Co-operative Union Ltd, brought an Originating Summons dated 6 June 2007 claiming to have become entitled to parcel NTIMA/IGOKI/1964 (0.56Ha) by adverse possession. It alleged it purchased the land in 1978 from Lawrence Kairanya and F. Rintari, took possession, built a milling factory and permanent structures valued at over Kshs 264 million, and remained in open occupation for some 30 to 40 years without the vendors ever demanding payment or possession. The Defendants denied payment and contended the Plaintiff was a permitted occupier whose occupation never became adverse; they filed a defence and counterclaim seeking eviction, a permanent injunction and mesne profits, which was opposed by a preliminary objection (dismissed 14 February 2018) and an application to strike out the counterclaim (disallowed 18 July 2018). At trial, the Plaintiff's witnesses, including former chairmen, accountants and managers, testified to the oral sale, possession since 1978, and payment evidenced by journal entries of two cheques. The Defendants' witness acknowledged the oral agreement and that the structures and fence were paid, and confirmed the Plaintiff's continuous occupation since 1978, but disputed payment for the land itself. The Court found the Plaintiff in open, notorious and continuous adverse possession from 1978; time ran from the date possession was taken given the absence of Land Control Board consent, so the Defendants' title was extinguished in 1990 after 12 years. The Court held the oral agreement binding due to performance, that the Defendants were estopped and guilty of laches, and gave the Plaintiff the benefit of doubt on payment. The Defendants' title having been extinguished, their counterclaim for eviction, injunction and mesne profits failed. The claim succeeded; the Plaintiff was declared entitled to the land by adverse possession, the Land Registrar was ordered to register it as proprietor dispensing with usual documents, the Deputy Registrar was authorized to execute the transfer documents, and the Defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff established title by adverse possession

Holding

Yes; the Plaintiff was in open, continuous and notorious possession from 1978, the Defendants did nothing to dispossess it, and title was extinguished in 1990 after 12 years

Reasoning

The Court found as fact that the Plaintiff entered and possessed the land in 1978 under an oral sale agreement, made massive developments worth hundreds of millions, and that the vendors never demanded payment or possession during their lifetimes. Possession was open, exclusive and uninterrupted, satisfying nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. The failure to obtain Land Control Board consent meant time ran from the date possession was taken, so the 12-year period lapsed in 1990, extinguishing the Defendants' title.

p. 5
02

Whether the Defendants' counterclaim for eviction, injunction and mesne profits (trespass) could stand

Holding

No; dismissed, because the Defendants' title was extinguished and the Plaintiff entered as purchaser, not licensee

Reasoning

Having held title extinguished by operation of law, the Court found the claim of trespass untenable since the Plaintiff's occupation was adverse, not permissive. The defence that the oral agreement was unenforceable for want of writing or consent failed because performance and possession were proved and the Defendants were estopped from reclaiming the land after decades of inaction (laches).

p. 5
03

Whether the purchase price was paid for the suit land

Holding

On the evidence, the Court gave the benefit of doubt to the Plaintiff that it paid for the land

Reasoning

The accounting journals showed two cheques with a narration of purchase of land, and the Defendants conceded the structures and fence were paid. The Defendants produced no documents to prove non-payment, and neither Kairanya nor Rintari demanded payment during their lifetimes. The absence of any demand led the Court to infer payment.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a sale transaction for land fails for want of Land Control Board consent, time for adverse possession runs from the date the claimant is put in possession
  • An oral agreement for sale of land is binding if followed by due performance by the parties
  • At the expiry of the limitation period the title of the registered proprietor is extinguished in favour of the adverse possessor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs claim succeeds
  2. 2.The Defendants counterclaim is dismissed
  3. 3.Meru Central Farmers Co-operative Union Ltd declared entitled to NTIMA/IGOKI/1964 by adverse possession
  4. 4.The Registrar of lands mandated to register the Plaintiff as owner of the suit land in place of the Defendants and to dispense with the production of any documents ordinarily required
  5. 5.The Hon Deputy Registrar of the Court mandated to execute the requisite documents to effect the title in the name of the Plaintiff
  6. 6.The Defendants to meet the costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)Sections 7, 13(1)-(3), 17, 37, 38(1)-(2)
  • Land Registration Act, No. 6 of 2012Sections 7, 28(h), 60

Cases cited (4)

  • Adnam v Earl of Sandwich
    (1877) 2QB 485
  • Kweyu v Omuto
    C A Civ Appeal 8 of 1990 (as yet unreported)
  • Kimani Ruchire v Swift Rutherfords & Co. Ltd.
    (1980) KLR 10
  • Mbugua Njuguna v Elijah Mburu Wanyoike & Another
    Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 7, 13, 17, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22); order for registration as proprietor under Section 38(1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

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, "Meru Central Farmers Cooperative Union v Ruth Igoki Rintari & another [2019] KEELC 3885 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Originating Summons dated 6/6/07 (NTIMA/IGOKI/1964). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3885/eng@2019-04-04

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