Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 6th June, 2019· [2020] KEELC 544 (KLR)

Sammy Mutua Muswii v Njoki Elizabeth Wambugu [2020] KEELC 544 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
27 November 2020
910 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Machakos reversed its own earlier ruling after a filing error, and declared that 32 years of occupation had given the buyer full ownership of the land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion dated 6th June, 2019 seeking review of the court's judgment which struck out his suit because the copy of the title document filed in court was incomplete, lacking its last page. The application, supported by an affidavit of the Plaintiff's advocate, explained that the omission was a bona fide error during photocopying and filing, that the advocate's copy and the original title were complete, and that the court had at trial directed that original documents need not be produced. The application was unopposed. The court, applying Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, held that the filing of an incomplete title document was a bona fide error constituting sufficient reason to review the judgment. With the complete title now before the court, the court turned to the underlying claim: the Plaintiff purchased the suit property, L.R. No. 337/488, IR 34879, from the Defendant on 9th July, 1988 and had been in occupation since, evidence which the Defendant never controverted. Applying sections 7 and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and the decision in Kimani Ruchine vs. Swift Rutherford & Co. Ltd [1980] KLR on the requirements of continuous possession as of right (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario), the court found the Plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession. The court allowed the Originating Summons dated 23rd February, 2015, declared the Plaintiff's registrable interest, ordered the title registered in his favour, and directed each party to bear their own costs. The judgment was delivered in Machakos on 27th November, 2020 by O.A. Angote, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Review of judgment under Order 45

Holding

The striking out of the suit rested on an incomplete copy of the title, a bona fide error amounting to sufficient reason for review

Reasoning

Order 45 permits review upon discovery of new matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The suit was struck out solely because the filed copy of the title lacked its last page due to a photocopying and filing error. The Defendant did not oppose the application, and the complete title was now before the court, satisfying the sufficient-reason ground.

p. 2
02

Adverse possession

Holding

The Plaintiff, having purchased the property in 1988 and remained in occupation uncontroverted, acquired registrable title by adverse possession

Reasoning

Sections 7 and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bar recovery of land after twelve years and allow a person in adverse possession to apply to be registered as proprietor. Following Kimani Ruchine vs Swift Rutherford, possession must be as of right and continuous. The Defendant did not controvert the Plaintiff's evidence of purchase on 9th July 1988 and continuous occupation since then.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A bona fide error such as filing an incomplete document is a sufficient reason for review under Order 45
  • Adverse possession ripens after twelve years and entitles the possessor to be registered as proprietor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's Originating Summons dated 23rd February, 2015 is allowed
  2. 2.The Judgment of 25th September, 2019 is reviewed
  3. 3.The Plaintiff has acquired registrable interest in land known as L.R. No. 337/488, IR 34879 by adverse possession
  4. 4.The title for L.R. No. 337/488, IR 34879 to be registered in favour of the Plaintiff
  5. 5.Each party to bear his/her own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Limitation of Actions Actsections 7 and 38(1)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kimani Ruchine vs. Swift Rutherford & Co. Ltd
    [1980] KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction); sections 7 and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sammy Mutua Muswii v Njoki Elizabeth Wambugu [2020] KEELC 544 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 6th June, 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/544/eng@2020-11-27

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