Mohammed Ruwa Maridadi & 2 others v Pritam Singh Panesar [2022] KEELC 405 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Three families who lived on Kwale land for years won ownership by adverse possession, though the court refused their extra injunction request.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs proved adverse possession of Kwale/Msambweni A/3390
Yes. The Plaintiffs proved actual, open, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation for over 12 years from the Defendant's registration as proprietor on 9 July 2009, without permission and inconsistent with the owner's enjoyment, so title by adverse possession matured.
The court applied the Limitation of Actions Act, sections 7, 37 and 38(1), and the principles in Chevron (K) Ltd v Harrison Charo Wa Shutu and Wambugu v Njuguna. The title deed confirmed the Defendant as absolute proprietor since 9 July 2009. Photographs and a court-ordered ground status report by the District Land Surveyor confirmed houses, boreholes and mature trees evidencing actual occupation. PW1's ID showed birth on the land in 1962; the Defendant never appeared nor sought to remove them. Time was computed from registration, giving 13 years. The claim was uncontroverted and proved on a balance of probabilities.
Whether a permanent injunction should issue against the Defendant
No. The injunction was declined because PW1 himself testified the Defendant had never come to remove them from the suit property.
Although the Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents and contractors from entering the land, demolishing structures or evicting them, the court found no basis for it on the evidence. PW1's own oral evidence was that the Defendant had never come to remove them from the land, indicating no present or threatened interference warranting injunctive relief.
Who should bear the costs
The Defendant, having failed to enter appearance or file a defence, was ordered to bear the costs of the suit.
Counsel submitted that costs should follow the event, and the court, having entered judgment for the Plaintiffs on the adverse possession claim, ordered the Defendant to bear the costs of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- An undefended suit is not granted automatically; the plaintiff must still prove the facts alleged on a balance of probabilities
- Adverse possession can only run against a registered owner, and time is computed from registration of the owner
Court orders
#- 1.That the Plaintiffs be declared to have acquired title in the land parcel No Kwale/Msambweni A/3390 by adverse possession
- 2.Land Register Kwale be ordered to register land parcel No Kwale/Msambweni A/3390 in the names of the Plaintiffs as proprietors in common
- 3.In default of registration, the Deputy Registrar is ordered to execute all the appropriate documents necessary to effect the transfer to the Plaintiffs
- 4.The orders for a permanent injunction are declined for the reason that PWI during his oral evidence stated that the Defendant has never come to remove them from the suit property
- 5.The Defendant shall bear the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and Order 37 Rule 3D of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
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.
- Mbaabu v M’Ikiugu[2022] KEELC 14654 (KLR)9 Nov 2022
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mohammed Ruwa Maridadi & 2 others v Pritam Singh Panesar [2022] KEELC 405 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC NO (OS) 2 OF 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/405/eng@2022-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.