Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedOriginating Summons dated 28th May 2009 (Kirinyaga)· [2020] KEELC 1977 (KLR)

Fredrick Muriuki Kabita v Ciira Ndinwa [2020] KEELC 1977 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2020
ECE.C. Cherono
1,972 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

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a 21-year adverse possession claim because the buyer never finished paying for the land, so the possession clock never started.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff filed an Originating Summons dated 28th May 2009 seeking a declaration that his occupation of one acre out of land parcel MUTIRA/KANYEI/292, registered in the defendant's name, had become adverse since 1988; a declaration that he had acquired absolute title by operation of Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act; rectification of the register; and costs. He testified that the defendant sold him the acre for Ksh. 30,000/= under a sale agreement dated 4th May 1988, that he paid Ksh. 10,000/= as a down payment and later Ksh. 18,100/= in acknowledged instalments, and that he had cultivated the land continuously for over twelve years. The defendant and his wife (DW2) denied a sale, asserting the plaintiff was leased one acre for one season at Ksh. 240/= to raise school fees, and that the plaintiff later took him to advocates to sign documents he did not understand. The court framed two issues: adverse possession and costs. Applying Sospeter Wanyoike v Waithaka Kahiri, Samson B. Khwatenge v Phillip W. Silungi and Sisto Wambugu v Kamau Njuguna, the court held that where possession is taken under a sale agreement, limitation does not run until the full purchase price is paid; the plaintiff had paid only Ksh. 28,100/=, leaving Ksh. 1,900/= outstanding, and his occupation remained permissive, permission and adverse possession being incapable of co-existing. The claim, being premature and uncrystallized, was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff acquired one acre of MUTIRA/KANYEI/292 by adverse possession

Holding

No. The claim was premature and unsustainable because the purchase price was unpaid and occupation was permissive under the sale agreement.

Reasoning

The plaintiff entered the land under a 1988 sale agreement paying Ksh. 30,000/= by instalments but paid only Ksh. 28,100/=, leaving Ksh. 1,900/= outstanding. Where land is subject to a sale agreement, limitation does not begin to run until the last instalment is paid. Occupation with the owner's permission is not adverse; permission and adverse possession cannot co-exist. Further, the plaintiff had not complied with the agreement's terms including Land Control Board consent for agricultural land. The claim had not crystallized and was dismissed.

p. 2
02

Costs of the suit

Holding

Costs follow the event; the defendant was awarded costs upon dismissal.

Reasoning

Having found the claim unsustainable and dismissed the suit, the court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event and awarded costs to the successful defendant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a purchaser in possession under a sale agreement has not paid the full purchase price, time for adverse possession does not begin to run until the last instalment is paid
  • Adverse possession cannot run where possession is with the owner's permission or under a sale agreement; possession is either with permission or adverse, and the two cannot co-exist

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land ActCap. 300
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38, Cap. 22

Cases cited (3)

  • SOSPETER WANYOIKE VS WAITHAKA KAHIRI
    (1979) K.L.R 236
  • SAMSON B. KHWATENGE VS PHILLIP W. SILUNGI
    (2018) e K.L.R
  • SISTO WAMBUGU VS KAMAU NJUGUNA
    (1983) K.L.R 172
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under the Registered Land Act (Cap. 300) and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Fredrick Muriuki Kabita v Ciira Ndinwa [2020] KEELC 1977 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Originating Summons dated 28th May 2009 (Kirinyaga). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1977/eng@2020-05-08

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