Mukuru Kwa Njenga Slum Resident & 12 others v Nairobi County Government & 13 others [2022] KEELC 1379 (KLR)

The court held that adverse possession accrues private interest (title in the claimant's name) and belongs to private law, so it cannot be litigated as a constitutional petition. Further, a claimant must prove occupation, possession and use; the Petitioners attached no photographic or other evidence of occupation, leaving the necessary ingredients unproven.

Absent evidence of compulsory acquisition of the private land for the road, the portion is taken to be public land. Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act bars acquisition of title to Government land, and the Court of Appeal in Chevron (K) Ltd v Harrison Charo Wa Shutu confirms no adverse possession claim lies against public land.

Quoting constitutional articles without particulars is insufficient. The circular anchoring the violation claim was neither dated, signed nor annexed, so its tenor could not be ascertained. Relying on Mumo Matemu and Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi, the court held proof on a balance of probabilities is required even in petitions and declined to speculate.

The ex-parte applicants in the 1996 judicial review were representatives of the same Mukuru Kwa Njenga residents; the eviction and ownership issues were then adjudicated and eviction liberty granted. The Petitioners never controverted this deposition, leaving it unrebutted. Citing E.T. v Attorney General, parties cannot evade res judicata by adding parties or dressing the claim as a constitutional petition.