Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 6/9/2018 in suit filed 17/6/2017· [2019] KEELC 4950 (KLR)

JKN ‘A’ & 2 others v TMN & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4950 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 January 2019
1,788 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed you can add an adverse possession claim to an existing land lawsuit through amendment, without starting a fresh case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs/Applicants moved the Court by Notice of Motion dated 6/9/2018 for leave to amend their plaint filed on 17/6/2017, to add claims that the suit land was held in trust for them and that their continuous occupation since the 1960s entitled them to ownership by adverse possession. The 1st Defendant/Respondent opposed, contending that adverse possession claims must be brought by originating summons under Order 37 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, that the amendments constituted a complete departure from the original cause of action, and that Article 159 of the Constitution could not override mandatory procedure. The sole issue framed was whether a court could allow an adverse possession claim to be canvassed in a plaint through amendment. Relying on Mariba v Mariba, Wabala v Okumu, Gulam Mariam Noordin v Julius Charo Karisa, Bayete Co. Ltd v Kosgey, Muthuita v Muthuita and Gatimu Kinguru v Muya Gathangi, and guided by Article 159, the Court held that adverse possession may be pleaded by plaint, defence or counter-claim; the originating summons requirement applies only to applications under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act for registration as proprietor. Trust and adverse possession claims may go hand in hand, though pleading them in the alternative is preferable. Applying section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 8 rule 3 and the Central Kenya Ltd principles, the Court found the amendment necessary to determine the real controversy and not prejudicial beyond compensable costs. The application was granted with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether adverse possession can be introduced into an existing suit by amendment of a plaint rather than by originating summons under Order 37 rule 7

Holding

Yes - the amendment introducing a claim of adverse possession is admissible; the originating summons route is not mandatory for all adverse possession claims.

Reasoning

Order 37 rule 7 requires an originating summons only for applications under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act seeking registration as proprietor. Courts, including the Court of Appeal, have upheld adverse possession claims pleaded in a plaint, defence or counter-claim. Guided by Article 159 and those authorities, the Court held the amendment admissible, though pleading in the alternative is preferable.

p. 2
02

Whether the proposed amendment met the criteria for leave to amend under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 rule 3

Holding

The amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy and caused no prejudice beyond compensable costs.

Reasoning

Applying the Central Kenya Ltd criteria - necessity to determine the real controversy, avoidance of multiplicity of suits, no prejudice incapable of compensation in costs - the Court found the amendment introduced a second cause of action arising from the same occupation facts, and the Defendant would suffer no prejudice beyond costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A claim for adverse possession may be brought by plaint (or defence/counter-claim); the originating summons procedure under Order 37 rule 7 is only mandatory where a party applies to be registered as proprietor by adverse possession.
  • Claims for trust and adverse possession may be pleaded together, though it is helpful to plead them in the alternative.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include the claim for adverse possession and trust
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 rule 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 rule 3
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38

Cases cited (7)

  • Mariba v Mariba
    Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2002
  • Wabala v Okumu
    [1997] LLR 609 (CAK)
  • Gulam Mariam Noordin v Julius Charo Karisa
    Civil Appeal No 26 of 2015
  • Bayete Co. Ltd v Kosgey
    [1998] LLR 813
  • Muthuita v Muthuita
    (1982-88) 1 KAR 42
  • Gatimu Kinguru v Muya Gathangi
    (1976) KLR 253
  • Central Kenya Ltd
    Appeal No 222 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; sections 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 8 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (amendment of pleadings)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "JKN ‘A’ & 2 others v TMN & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 6/9/2018 in suit filed 17/6/2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4950/eng@2019-01-17

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