Abraham Jeremia Irukan v Rasomo Osilingi Omunyongor [2020] KEELC 3022 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Busia court declared a family owners of 5 acres after 33 years of open occupation, and dismissed the landowner's late eviction suit as time-barred.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#When the plaintiffs entered and occupied the suit land
The plaintiffs entered in 1981 after purchase by the late Richard Eric Etori and remained in possession until August 2014 when they were forcibly evicted
The court found the defendant's evidence contradictory as to when the plaintiffs entered and left the land. PW2, a witness to the sale, was credible and corroborated by PW4. The defendant's own suit for eviction filed in August 2014 confirmed the plaintiffs were still in occupation, contradicting claims they had vacated in January 2014.
Whether the plaintiffs' occupation extinguished the defendant's title by adverse possession
Yes - the plaintiffs' hostile, open and continuous occupation of a demarcated 5-acre portion for over 12 years extinguished the defendant's rights
The plaintiffs occupied a defined, demarcated portion from 1981, built homes and farmed it to the exclusion of others. The occupation was hostile because the defendant denied selling or permitting it. The 2nd plaintiff's structures proved occupation. The forcible eviction after filing suit was involuntary and did not interrupt the possession.
Whether the defendant's eviction suit was time-barred
Yes - the eviction suit filed in August 2014 was barred by Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The defendant filed ELC Case No. 159 of 2014 seeking eviction more than 12 years after the plaintiffs entered the land in 1981. Under Section 7, an action to recover land may not be brought after twelve years from when the right of action accrued. The defendant's right to sue had thus expired.
Legal principles established
#- For a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the owner must have been dispossessed or discontinued use, and possession must be hostile, actual, open, uninterrupted, notorious, exclusive and continuous for 12 years
- An action to recover land may not be brought after twelve years from when the right of action accrued
- Consent or permission from the owner is not needed for a claim of adverse possession to accrue; hostile occupation suffices
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered as prayed in the Originating Summons dated 24th July 2014, declaring the plaintiffs owners of a portion measuring approximately 5 acres out of L.R No. North Teso/Angurai/474 by adverse possession
- 2.The defendant's claim for eviction (Bungoma ELC Case No. 159 of 2014) dismissed
- 3.Costs of the suit (treated as one suit after consolidation) awarded to the plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Limitation of Actions Act and claims concerning title to land
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abraham Jeremia Irukan v Rasomo Osilingi Omunyongor [2020] KEELC 3022 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Case No. 153 of 2014 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3022/eng@2020-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.