Langat Kipkemoi Anthony & another v Maseiya Ole Ololmaitai & another [2022] KEELC 1342 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave two families ownership of 26 acres they had occupied since 1982, because the registered owners waited too long to assert their rights.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs acquired title to the 26 acres by adverse possession
Yes. Their occupation since 1982 was continuous, open, peaceful and adverse, and the limitation period expired by the year 2000, extinguishing the defendants' rights.
The court found it undisputed that the defendants sold 26 acres to the plaintiffs' fathers in 1982 and that the plaintiffs took possession, built homes, cultivated and fenced the land. No evidence of interruption was adduced. Applying Sections 7, 13, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, the court computed the claim as accruing by 1988 (contract limitation) and adverse possession maturing in 2000. The defendants did not dispute this computation.
Whether the amended decree in Narok CMCC No. 77 of 2008 defeated the claim
No. The court declined to delve into the decree since no appeal had been preferred against it, but noted it did not account for the plaintiffs' developments.
The 2nd defendant argued the suit was overtaken by events because of the amended decree of 31st October 2011 in the magistrates' court partition suit. The court observed that the decree's items 2 and 3 dealt with third parties' interests after partition and appeared not to take into account the developments made by the plaintiffs, but held that absent an appeal it would not delve further into that decree.
Legal principles established
#- An action to recover land may not be brought after the end of 12 years from the date the right of action accrued (Section 7, Limitation of Actions Act).
- Where land is registered, title is not extinguished by adverse possession but is held in trust for the person in adverse possession until a court order vests the land in him.
- A purchaser of land under a contract who takes possession may found a claim of adverse possession; the limitation period for the contract claim is six years under Section 4(1)(a), after which adverse possession begins to run.
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the plaintiffs have been in continuous and uninterrupted occupation, possession and use of twenty six acres comprising land parcel No. Narok/Cis-Mara/Il Motiok/235
- 2.Declared that the said possession, use and continuous occupation have been peaceful, open and adverse to the plaintiffs' interests since the year 2000
- 3.Declared that the rights of the defendants to the 26 acres portion of the suit land have been extinguished by effluxion of time
- 4.Declared the plaintiffs owners of the 26 acres out of Land parcel No. Narok/Cis-Mara/Il Motiok/235 and directed that a certificate of title do issue in their respective names
- 5.Ordered the 2nd defendant to bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution establishing the Environment and Land Court; Originating Summons under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Langat Kipkemoi Anthony & another v Maseiya Ole Ololmaitai & another [2022] KEELC 1342 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). ELC Case No. 65 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1342/eng@2022-02-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.