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 filed 5th October 2018 (Kakamega)· [2022] KEELC 198 (KLR)

Asman Okiti Nanjira v Pan Africa Alcohol Industries Ltd [2022] KEELC 198 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
26 April 2022
961 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A man who openly farmed 10 acres unchallenged for 18 years won ownership from the registered company owner in Kakamega's Environment and Land Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff filed an Originating Summons on 5th October 2018 seeking a declaration that he had acquired Title No. South Wanga/Lureko/872 (approximately 10 acres, subdivided from South Wanga/Lureko/554) by adverse possession. He deposed that he moved onto the land in 1990, grew maize and cereal crops, and was never evicted or questioned by the defendant company, the registered proprietor since 13th September 1977 per the certified green card. The defendant, though served, neither filed a response nor attended the hearing; its case was closed and it filed no submissions. The plaintiff relied on Wambugu vs Njuguna and Celina Mutoni Kithinji vs Safiya Swaleh & 8 Others. Ohungo J framed two issues: whether adverse possession was established and whether the reliefs should issue. Applying the tenets restated in Loise Nduta Itotia v Aziza Said Hamisi, drawn from Kimani Ruchire vs Swift Rutherford, the court held the claimant must prove use as of right (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario), with the owner's actual or constructive knowledge, and continuous possession. The plaintiff's unchallenged occupation from 1990 to 2018 (about 18 years) exceeded the 12-year requirement. On a balance of probabilities, adverse possession was established. The court declared continuous peaceful and exclusive occupation for over 12 years, extinguished the defendant's title, ordered the plaintiff's registration as proprietor, authorized the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer documents, and made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established adverse possession of the suit property

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff entered in 1990, occupied openly, continuously and unchallenged while growing crops, exceeding the 12-year limitation period

Reasoning

The plaintiff deposed that he moved onto the land in 1990, grew maize and cereal crops, and was never evicted or questioned. The evidence was uncontroverted as the defendant neither filed a response nor attended. Applying the tenets in Kimani Ruchire as restated in Loise Nduta Itotia, possession was as of right, peaceful, exclusive and unbroken for about 18 years. The green card confirmed the defendant remained registered proprietor of the 10-acre parcel.

p. 2
02

Whether the defendant's title was extinguished and registration should issue

Holding

Yes - the defendant's title was extinguished in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to be registered as proprietor

Reasoning

Having held adverse possession established on a balance of probabilities, the court declared the defendant's title extinguished, ordered registration of the plaintiff as proprietor, and authorized the Deputy Registrar to execute the transfer documents since the defendant did not appear. The court granted all five reliefs sought in the originating summons, though it made no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • To establish adverse possession, a claimant must prove use of the land as of right - nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - with the owner's knowledge (actual or constructive) and continuous, unbroken possession for the limitation period
  • A claim in adverse possession succeeds where possession is established for the statutory 12-year period and is unchallenged

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the plaintiff has been in continuous peaceful and exclusive occupation of South Wanga/Lureko/872 measuring approximately 10 acres for a period of over 12 years from 1990 against the registered proprietor
  2. 2.Declaration that the defendant's title to South Wanga/Lureko/872 has been extinguished in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of adverse possession
  3. 3.Order that the plaintiff be registered as proprietor of South Wanga/Lureko/872
  4. 4.Order authorizing the Deputy Registrar of the court to execute all requisite documents for transfer and registration of South Wanga/Lureko/872 in the plaintiff's name
  5. 5.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Act (referred to as 'the Act')12-year limitation period for adverse possession (implied)

Cases cited (4)

  • Wambugu vs Njuguna
    [1988] KLR 173
  • Celina Mutoni Kithinji vs Safiya Swaleh & 8 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Loise Nduta Itotia v Aziza Said Hamisi
    [2020] eKLR
  • Kimani Ruchire vs Swift Rutherford & Co. Ltd.
    [1980] KLR 10
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction to determine adverse possession claims by Originating Summons under the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Asman Okiti Nanjira v Pan Africa Alcohol Industries Ltd [2022] KEELC 198 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Originating Summons filed 5th October 2018 (Kakamega). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/198/eng@2022-04-26

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