Paulina Jepngetich Keino & another v Stephen Cheruiyot Koros [2022] KEELC 507 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan family who occupied farmland for 50 years after an informal 1972 purchase won legal ownership, proving inheritance does not interrupt adverse possession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a purchaser in possession can claim adverse possession
Yes; once the sale contract becomes unenforceable and void under the Land Control Act and the Limitation of Actions Act, the vendor's permission is terminated by operation of law and possession becomes adverse
The 1972 purchase lacked Land Control Board consent, required within 6 months under Section 6(1) of the Land Control Act, and the contract became unenforceable after 6 years under the Limitation of Actions Act, i.e. void from 1978. Relying on Peter Mbiri Michuki and Samuel Miki Waweru, the court held limitation runs in favour of a purchaser in possession, commencing in 1978.
Whether the Plaintiffs were in open, continuous and exclusive occupation
Yes; the Plaintiffs occupied 8.5 acres openly, continuously and exclusively since 1972, corroborated by the Defendant's own cross-examination
PW1 and PW2 were corroborated by PW3 and PW4. The Defendant confirmed in cross-examination that his family occupied only about 6.5 acres and that the Plaintiffs had occupied the remainder since before he was born in 1986. The claim was limited to 8.5 acres, not the whole 17 acres.
Whether there is a boundary dispute
No; the alleged boundary dispute was neither pleaded nor registered and is an afterthought
The Defendant never registered a boundary dispute nor did his late grandmother, and the claim of moved boundaries surfaced only in evidence and submissions, not in the pleadings. The court therefore rejected it as unsupported.
Whether adverse possession can be claimed against a Defendant registered only in 2016
Yes; adverse possession runs against the title, not the current holder, and a change of ownership does not interrupt it
Relying on Peter Gichuki Wanjohi, Kairu v Gacheru and Mwangi Githu v Livingstone Ndete, the court held that the claim runs against the title and its predecessors in title; transmission to the Defendant in 2016 did not reset the limitation clock.
Legal principles established
#- A purchaser in possession of land can claim adverse possession once the contract has become void for lack of Land Control Board consent or unenforceability under the Limitation of Actions Act, and time runs from when the contract became void
- Adverse possession runs against the title itself, not merely the current registered holder; a mere change of ownership does not interrupt adverse possession
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Applicants: the 1st and 2nd Applicant have acquired ownership of 8.5 acres in Nandi/Kilibwoni 370 by the operation of the doctrine of adverse possession
- 2.The Land Registrar Nandi County to rectify the Register by subdividing Nandi/Kilibwoni 370 into two portions measuring 8.5 acres each, registering the Plaintiffs jointly in the 8.5 acres they occupy, and the other 8.5 acres to the Defendant and his siblings, within 30 days of the Judgment
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) for a declaration of adverse possession
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paulina Jepngetich Keino & another v Stephen Cheruiyot Koros [2022] KEELC 507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Originating Summons (Nandi/Kilibwoni/370) - not fully stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/507/eng@2022-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.