Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedOriginating Summons dated 22nd August 2012 (filed 24th August 2012)· [2021] KEELC 20 (KLR)

Paul Gogo v Isaac Isaiah Onyango Pande [2021] KEELC 20 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya (styled as the High Court in the Originating Summons)
23 September 2021
3,678 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu court declared a man who farmed land for 16 years its rightful owner, transferring the title even though the registered owner refused.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Paul Gogo, filed an Originating Summons in 2012 seeking a declaration that he owns land parcel KISUMU/WAWIDHI "A" 11/33 by adverse possession, an order compelling the defendant to execute conveyance forms, and consequential transfer through the Deputy Registrar in default. The plaintiff's case was that in 1995 the defendant, facing a bank auction over a loan of Kshs.335,470/= charged on parcel 11/790, offered to sell him the suit property; the plaintiff paid Kshs.150,000/= to National Bank of Kenya, obtained the original title, and cultivated the land continuously from October 1995. The defendant alleged a higher purchase price of Kshs.1,500,000/= was agreed, that the plaintiff reneged, and that he later sold the land to Kerina Maryline Agunda; he also gazetted the title as lost in 2010 and obtained a fresh title. The defendant filed no submissions. Four witnesses corroborated the plaintiff's open, continuous possession, including sugarcane farming until 2010. Applying sections 7 and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and the ingredients of adverse possession from Munyaka Kuna and Kasuve, the court found over twelve years of uninterrupted possession, noted the defendant produced no sale agreement with the alleged purchaser, and criticised the gazette notice. The suit was allowed: the plaintiff was declared owner by adverse possession, the defendant was ordered to execute conveyance forms, the Deputy Registrar to effect transfer in default, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. Judgment was delivered electronically in Kisumu on 23rd September 2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff had been in open, continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession of the suit property for the statutory period of twelve years

Holding

The plaintiff proved adverse possession, having taken possession in 1995 and continuously cultivated the land without force, secrecy or interruption for over twelve years

Reasoning

The plaintiff paid Kshs.150,000/= to the bank in 1995, obtained the original title and took possession, growing sugarcane until 2010. Four witnesses corroborated his occupation. The defendant never interrupted that possession save for one cane-cutting incident. The court found the twelve-year period under sections 7 and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act fully satisfied.

p. 4
02

Whether the defendant's conduct, including the sale to Kerina Maryline Agunda and the gazettement of the title as lost, defeated the claim

Holding

The defendant's purported sale and gazette notice could not defeat the plaintiff's accrued right; no sale agreement or transfer to the third party was produced, and the gazette notice was issued after the plaintiff retained the original title

Reasoning

The court found the defendant knew of the plaintiff's possession yet purported to sell the property to Kerina Maryline Agunda without producing any agreement or transfer. The gazette notice declaring the title lost was published only after the plaintiff refused to hand over the original title, which the bank had released to him, demonstrating improper conduct on the defendant's part.

p. 4
03

Whether the plaintiff's claim was proved on a balance of probabilities

Holding

Applying the principles in Munyaka Kuna and Kasuve, the plaintiff discharged the burden on a balance of probabilities and the suit was allowed

Reasoning

The court weighed the plaintiff's evidence of possession from October 1995, corroborated by PW2, PW3 and PW4, against the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff never took possession, which was unsupported by any sale agreement with the alleged purchaser. The plaintiff's account of the 1995 arrangement through National Bank of Kenya was consistent and credible.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • To establish adverse possession, a litigant must prove factual possession and animus possidendi, use of the land nec vi nec clam nec precario for twelve years, the registered owner's knowledge of the possession, and continuity of possession without interruption
  • A claimant entitled to land by adverse possession must prove exclusive, open possession as of right without interruption for 12 years, after dispossessing the owner or after the owner discontinued possession
  • Under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, no action may be brought to recover land after the end of twelve years from the date the right of action accrued

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff is declared the owner of land parcel Number KISUMU/WAWIDHI "A" 11/33 by way of adverse possession
  2. 2.The Defendant/Respondent to execute all relevant conveyance forms relating to the land parcel in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant
  3. 3.In default of the Defendant/Respondent effecting the requisite transfer, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court is ordered to effect such transfer
  4. 4.Costs of the suit granted to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38(1)
  • Evidence ActSection 112

Cases cited (4)

  • Mbira Vs Gacguhi
    (2002)
  • Wambugu Vs Njuguna
    (1983) KLR 173
  • Munyaka Kuna Company Limited Vs Bernado Vicezo De Masi (The Administrator of The Estate of Domenico De Masi (Deceased)
    (2018) eKLR
  • Kasuve Vs Mwaani Investments Limited & 4 others
    1 KLR 184
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act - application to the High Court for an order that a person entitled by adverse possession be registered as proprietor

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Paul Gogo v Isaac Isaiah Onyango Pande [2021] KEELC 20 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Originating Summons dated 22nd August 2012 (filed 24th August 2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/20/eng@2021-09-23

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