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 AllowedELC Case No. 15 (A) of 2013 (O.S)· [2019] KEELC 4586 (KLR)

Silipa Ochieng Molo & 4 others v Jacob Ochino Ogundo & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4586 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 February 2019
SKS.M. Kibunja
2,030 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, members of Molo Owuor's family, brought an Originating Summons claiming title to Uyoma/Katwenga/828 by adverse possession against the Defendants, the registered proprietors who inherited the land through transmission in 1997 from their late father Jacob Ogundo Arunda, first registered in 1977 following adjudication. The Plaintiffs asserted that Molo Owuor had occupied the land before adjudication, lost Bondo Land Case No. 48 of 1970, but was never evicted, and that the Defendants never resided on or used the land. The Defendants countered that the Plaintiffs occupied as permissive clans-mates, that litigation between the parties was continuous, that they had cultivated and buried relatives on part of the land, and that possession was interrupted. The court framed a single substantive issue: whether the Plaintiffs had been in exclusive, quiet and continuous possession for over twelve years when the suit was filed. On the evidence, including the green card and uncontroverted testimony, the court found that Molo Owuor's family had occupied the land from before the 1977 registration and had never been evicted despite numerous suits; the litigations demonstrated the occupation was hostile, not permissive. The 1997 transmission did not interrupt time, and about sixteen years had elapsed by January 2013, exceeding the twelve-year threshold under Sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs: prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Originating Summons were granted, the Defendants were ordered to transfer the land within ninety days, failing which the Deputy Registrar was to execute the documents. Given the parties' kinship and litigation history, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs were in exclusive, quiet and continuous adverse possession of Uyoma/Katwenga/828 for over 12 years

Holding

Yes; the Plaintiffs and their family had been in occupation from before the 1977 registration, possession was hostile and uninterrupted, and over 16 years had run by filing of the suit, extinguishing the Defendants' title

Reasoning

The court found from the green card and uncontroverted testimony that Molo Owuor's family occupied the land from before the 1977 adjudication registration and were never evicted despite numerous suits and an eviction order. The litigations showed the occupation was not permissive. The 1997 transmission to the Defendants did not interrupt time; about 16 years elapsed by January 2013, exceeding the 12-year period under Sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

p. 3
02

Whether the possession was with the Defendants' permission

Holding

No; the history of litigation between the parties demonstrated that the Plaintiffs' occupation was hostile to the title of the registered proprietors

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the prolonged disputes between Molo Owuor and Jacob Ogundo Arunda and their families, including tribunal, magistrate and High Court cases and an appeal to the Minister, showed the entry and continued occupation were not with permission but hostile to the registered title.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Transfer of registration to a new proprietor by transmission does not interrupt the running of limitation time where the occupier's possession is adverse to the title
  • Possession that continues through successive registration and litigation may found title by adverse possession under Sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act after 12 years

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the Originating Summons are granted
  2. 2.The Defendants are ordered to take steps to transfer the suit land to the Plaintiffs in 90 (ninety) days, and in default the Deputy Registrar to execute all necessary documents to give effect to the order of the court
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 7 and 17
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under an Originating Summons pursuant to the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Silipa Ochieng Molo & 4 others v Jacob Ochino Ogundo & 3 others [2019] KEELC 4586 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case No. 15 (A) of 2013 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4586/eng@2019-02-20

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