Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Originating Summons dated 1st February, 2018)· [2021] KEELC 104 (KLR)

Derick Masini Onami v Josam Ibwana [2021] KEELC 104 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 December 2021
3,036 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that an adverse possession claim survives a landowner's death and can proceed to a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Vihiga (E. Asati, J) on a preliminary objection dated 4th November 2021 raised by the Defendant in an adverse possession suit. The Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons on 27th February 2018 seeking to be declared absolute owner of land known as W/BUNYORE/ESSABA/461 by adverse possession, claiming open and uninterrupted possession since 1995 when he purchased it. The Defendant, who bought the land from the administrator of the deceased registered owner and was registered on 7th September 2012, objected that the suit was res judicata (an earlier application in Kakamega H.C Succession Cause No. 134 of 2012 having been dismissed by Justice C. Kariuki), premature (under twelve years against his title), and an abuse of court process. The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test and found the objection competent as it raised pure points of law. On the merits, applying the Supreme Court's elements of res judicata in John Florence Maritime Services, it held the succession cause ruling was not final on the adverse possession claim, the ELC being the court with jurisdiction over that subject matter. Relying on section 16 of the Limitation of Actions Act and case law, the court held that death of a registered owner does not stop time running for adverse possession, so the suit filed in 2018 was not premature given entry in 1995. Consequently there was no abuse of process. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection was a valid one in law

Holding

The objection satisfied the Mukisa Biscuit threshold as it raised pure points of law arising from the pleadings

Reasoning

The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test, which requires a preliminary objection to be a pure point of law pleaded or arising by clear implication from the pleadings, capable of disposing of the suit, and argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposite side are correct. The objection rested on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and sections 7, 9, 13, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, so it met the threshold.

p. 3
02

Whether the suit is res judicata given the earlier ruling in the succession cause

Holding

The suit is not res judicata because the succession ruling was not final on the adverse possession claim and the ELC has jurisdiction over the subject matter

Reasoning

Applying the elements in John Florence Maritime Services, the court held that the ruling of Justice C. Kariuki in the succession cause was not final as far as the adverse possession claim was concerned, since the court had expressly given the plaintiff leeway to file such a claim in the Environment and Land Court, the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Hence the claim was never finally adjudicated by a court with jurisdiction.

p. 3
03

Whether the Originating Summons was filed prematurely before the expiry of twelve years

Holding

The suit was not premature; death of the registered owner does not stop time running for adverse possession

Reasoning

Relying on section 16 of the Limitation of Actions Act, section 30(f) of the repealed Registered Land Act (now section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act) and section 2(1) of the Law Reform Act, the court held that a claim of adverse possession survives the death of the title holder and time continues to run against the estate. The plaintiff claimed to have entered the land in 1995, so time had run well beyond twelve years before suit.

p. 4
04

Whether the suit is an abuse of the court process

Holding

No abuse of court process

Reasoning

The abuse-of-process complaint was premised on the suit being res judicata and premature, both of which findings failed. Since the suit was neither res judicata nor prematurely filed, the foundation for the abuse argument collapsed and the court found no abuse of process in filing the Originating Summons.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be based on pure points of law, arising from the pleadings, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposite party are correct
  • Res judicata requires a final judgment by a court with jurisdiction, with identical parties, subject matter and cause of action
  • Death of a registered owner of land does not stop time running for adverse possession
  • A ruling that directs a claimant to file an adverse possession claim in the Environment and Land Court is not a final determination of that claim for res judicata purposes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection raised vide Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th November 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 7, 9, 13, 37, 38, 16
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)Section 30(f)
  • Land Registration ActSection 28(h)
  • Law Reform ActSection 2(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Pangaea Holding LLC & Anor –vs- Hacienda Development Ltd & 2 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Mtana Lewa –Vs- Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi
    [2015] eKLR
  • Mchanga Investments –vs- Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others
    [2009] eKLR
  • ANMV –VS- PMN
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi
    [2005] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd – vs- West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] E.A 696
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another –vs- Cabinet Secretary Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Joseph Kamau Gichuki (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Gichuki Chege (Deceased) vs James Gatheru Mukora & Another
    [2019] eKLR
  • Karuntimi Raiji vs M'Makinya M'Itunga
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, as directed by the High Court in the succession cause

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Derick Masini Onami v Josam Ibwana [2021] KEELC 104 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons dated 1st February, 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/104/eng@2021-12-07

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