Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedOriginating Summons dated 27/2/2019 (Kitale ELC)· [2021] KEELC 556 (KLR)

Michael Maling’a Mbito v Florence Kethleen Law [2021] KEELC 556 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 December 2021
2,689 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kitale Environment and Land Court gave a man 9 acres he had openly occupied for nearly 30 years, proving long occupation can defeat a registered owner's title in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this unopposed Originating Summons, the plaintiff claimed 9 acres out of LR No. 11005 IR No. 18979 (25 acres) by adverse possession. He testified that in about 1979 his grandfather and one Enock Psenje bought the land from the defendant, taking 9 and 16 acres respectively; his grandfather bequeathed him the 9 acres in 1990 and he has been in actual possession since 1991. The defendant, served by substituted service after personal service failed, never entered appearance or filed a defence, and the matter proceeded ex parte. The court noted the plaintiff had pleaded under the repealed Registration of Titles Act, but overlooking this under Article 159(2)(d), it determined the suit on the merits. Applying Sections 7, 13 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the case law on adverse possession, the court held the plaintiff proved actual, open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession adverse to the registered owner for over 12 years - some 28 years by the time of filing - satisfying the nec vi, nec clam, nec precario standard and the requirement that the title holder be dispossessed or have discontinued possession for the statutory period. Supporting evidence included a certified copy of title and the record in Kitale ELC No. 10 of 2016, where Enock Psenje's widow and son were granted the adjoining 16 acres by adverse possession. Because the land falls under a registration regime that does not entail cancellation of title, the court declined to order cancellation as prayed and instead entered judgment for the plaintiff with declarations of adverse possession and an order registering him as proprietor of the 9 acres. As the defendant did not defend the suit, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff acquired 9 acres of the suit land by adverse possession

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff proved actual, open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 1991, adverse to the registered owner, exceeding the statutory 12-year period

Reasoning

The plaintiff testified his grandfather bought 9 acres in 1979, was bequeathed the land in 1990 and took possession in 1991, amounting to 28 years by 2019. The defendant, served by substituted service, neither entered appearance nor filed a defence, so the evidence was uncontroverted. Possession satisfied the nec vi, nec clam, nec precario standard and the four elements drawn from the case law. The court found the defendant dispossessed and her possession discontinued for the statutory period.

p. 3
02

Whether the suit should have been brought under the repealed Registration of Titles Act

Holding

The court treated the misjoinder of the repealed statute as a curable procedural technicality under Article 159(2)(d) and determined the suit on its substance

Reasoning

The Registration of Titles Act was repealed by the Land Registration Act, 2012, and by Section 105(b) existing titles are deemed titles under the new law. Strictly, the suit should have invoked the new regime, but the court overlooked this technicality in favour of substantive justice, consistent with the constitutional command that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.

p. 2
03

Whether the defendant's title should be cancelled

Holding

No - registration as proprietor of the 9 acres was ordered instead, since the applicable land regime does not entail cancellation of title but entry of proprietorship in the register

Reasoning

Prayer (b) sought cancellation of the defendant's registration. However, the suit land falls under a registration regime that does not provide for cancellation of title; the correct remedy is entry of the plaintiff's proprietorship in the register. The court therefore granted the relief in modified form, registering the plaintiff as proprietor of the 9 acres he occupies.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The combined effect of Sections 7, 13 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act is to extinguish the title of a proprietor of land in favour of an adverse possessor at the expiry of 12 years of adverse possession
  • A claimant must prove exclusive possession of the land openly and as of right without interruption for 12 years
  • Proof of adverse possession requires possession that is nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (no force, no secrecy, no evasion)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff has been in open and continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of nine (9) acres out of Land Reference Number 11005 IR No. 18979
  2. 2.A declaration that the Plaintiff has acquired by way of adverse possession nine (9) acres out of Land Reference Number 11005 IR No. 18979 and is entitled to be declared the owner of the 9 acres
  3. 3.The Plaintiff be registered as the proprietor of the 9 acres he occupies within Land Reference Number 11005 IR No. 18979
  4. 4.Each party shall bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 Rule 6(1), 7(1) and 8
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 17(4)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Chapter 22 of the Laws of KenyaSections 7, 13, 17, 27 and 38
  • Registration of Titles Act, Cap 281 Laws of Kenya (repealed)Section 143
  • Land Registration Act, Act No. 3 of 2012Section 105(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Evidence ActSection 107(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Wanjira Waweru v Peter Kabuga
    (2008) eKLR
  • Benjamin Kamau Murima & Others v Gladys Njeri
    CA No. 213 of 1996
  • Kasuve v Mwaani Investments Limited & 4 others
    1 KLR 184
  • Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Nala Mwagandi
    [2015] eKLR
  • Ibrahim Wachira Karaguri v Mary Mwihaki Simon & another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Francis Gicharu Kariri v Peter Njoroge Mairu
    Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2002 (Nairobi)
  • Kimani Ruchire v Swift Rutherfords & Co. Ltd.
    (1980) KLR 10
  • Celina Muthoni Kithinji v Safiya Binti Swaleh & 8 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Wambugu v Njuguna
    [1983] KLR 173
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the 2010 Constitution; Order 37 Rules 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 27 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Michael Maling’a Mbito v Florence Kethleen Law [2021] KEELC 556 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Originating Summons dated 27/2/2019 (Kitale ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/556/eng@2021-12-06

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