Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedBusia HCC No. 48 of 2012 (Originating Summons)· [2022] KEELC 282 (KLR)

Cosmas Omondi v Alfred Oduor Olendo [2022] KEELC 282 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 April 2022
3,151 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court awarded a farmer two acres of land by adverse possession after 12+ years of occupation, even though the title was registered in someone else's name.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff brought an Originating Summons under Order 37 Rules 7 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 37(A) and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act seeking declaration that he owned 2 acres of MARACHI/KINGANDOLE/822 (3.5 acres registered in the defendant's name) by adverse possession. He testified he purchased the 2 acres from Gabriel Oduori Maloba in 1993, took possession and cultivated sugarcane, later through a cane contract in his wife's name with Mumias Sugar Company. The vendor corroborated the 1993 sale and delivery of possession. The defendant, who bought 1.5 acres in 1994 and the 2 acres in 2009, denied the plaintiff's possession and counterclaimed eviction, arguing the plaintiff failed to annex a certified copy of the register. Directions consolidated the suit with Busia HCC No. 69 of 2013 and converted it to an ordinary suit. Applying Mbira v Gachuhi and Mtana Lewa, the court found the plaintiff in open, continuous possession exceeding 12 years before the defendant's December 2009 purchase, extinguishing the vendor's title, which could not pass to the defendant. The defendant's objection on the certified register failed since the summons annexed a certified register copy and a search certificate was produced. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff: a declaration of adverse possession, an order compelling the defendant to execute transfer documents (with the Deputy Registrar to execute in default), and each party bearing their own costs. The defendant's eviction claim failed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff proved adverse possession of 2 acres of MARACHI/KINGANDOLE/822

Holding

Yes - the plaintiff was in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years before the defendant's 2009 purchase, extinguishing the vendor's title

Reasoning

The plaintiff bought 2 acres in 1993, took possession, and cultivated sugarcane; the vendor corroborated this. The defendant admitted he was not using the land and that sugarcane stood on it. The vendor admitted giving possession to the plaintiff in 1993. By the defendant's 2009 purchase, the plaintiff had possessed the land for over 12 years, so the vendor had no good title to pass to the defendant.

p. 3
02

Whether failure to produce a certified copy of the register/green card was fatal

Holding

No - the originating summons annexed a certified copy of the register, a search certificate was produced (PEX 5) and the defendant himself produced the title (DEX 1)

Reasoning

Order 21 Rule 6 and Order 37 Rule 7(2) require production of a certified copy of title. The initial originating summons annexed a certified register copy (CO-6), the plaintiff produced a certificate of search, and the defendant produced the title, satisfying the requirements. A search certificate signed by the Registrar constitutes evidence of the register entries.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A person claiming title by adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse use for the statutory period without interruption
  • Adverse possession requires possession, assertion of rights and the registered owner's inaction for 12 years
  • A search certificate duly signed by the Registrar can be produced in place of an extract of title

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the plaintiff has acquired interests to 2 acres of land parcel MARACHI/KINGANDOLE/822 by virtue of adverse possession after possession and occupation for a period in excess of 12 years
  2. 2.An order directing the defendant to forthwith execute all necessary documents to facilitate the subdivision, transfer and registration of the 2-acre portion into the plaintiff's name; in default, the Deputy Registrar to execute the documents in place of the defendant
  3. 3.Each party shall meet their costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 Rules 7 and 14
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 6
  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22Sections 37(A) and 38(1)
  • Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012
  • Registered Land ActSection 36(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mbira -v- Gachuhi
    (2002) IEALR 137
  • Mtana Lewa -v- Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi
    (2005) eKLR
  • Mbari Kioni v Salome Wanjiru Mwaura & Anor
    (2012) eKLR
  • Johnson Kinyua v Simon Gitura Rumuri Civil Appeal 265 of 2005 (Nyeri)
    [2011] KLR
  • Essolly Enterprises Limited v Benjoh Amalgamated Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Musa Kipkoskei Labatt v Laban Kipkebu Barkoton
    (2019) eKLR
  • Susan Wanchara Acheri v Maurice Adek Oduogi
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 37 Rules 7 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 37(A) and 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22; Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cosmas Omondi v Alfred Oduor Olendo [2022] KEELC 282 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Busia HCC No. 48 of 2012 (Originating Summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/282/eng@2022-04-21

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