Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedKericho ELC (not stated in judgment)· [2022] KEELC 3064 (KLR)

Chuchunei (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Samwel Rono (Deceased) & 2 others v Mosonik (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 33 of 2015) [2022] KEELC 3064 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2022
5,807 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court ruled that long occupation does not beat a registered title, awarding landowners damages and an injunction against a trespasser.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Plaint dated 2nd July 2015 and amended on 17th July 2019, the Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/2972, sued the Defendant seeking a declaration of ownership, a perpetual injunction, general damages for trespass, interest and costs. They claimed he trespassed in April 2014 by planting eucalyptus trees. The Defendant denied trespass, contending his late father, Eric Bargetet, registered owner of the adjoining parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/800, had occupied the disputed strip and planted trees there since the early 1960s/1982, and that the Plaintiffs' parents never objected. The Land Registrar (PW3) testified that although the Plaintiffs held title, the Defendant was in occupation and the subdivision of parcel No. 806 had been wrongly done; the RIM, he said, was not the final authority on boundaries. The District Surveyor (DW3) reported that the disputed 0.045ha fell within parcel No. 2972 on the RIM but had been occupied by the owner of parcel No. 800 for over 30 years. The court found as undisputed that the Plaintiffs were registered proprietors as from 13th July 2011, and held that the registration reset limitation: no suit for adverse possession having been filed, time began running afresh on 13th July 2011, so the 2015 suit was within the 12-year period. Relying on Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act and the authorities on continuing trespass, the court held the Defendant's continued occupation, despite demand, was trespass actionable per se. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs with a declaration of ownership, a perpetual injunction, general damages of Ksh 100,000/= (reduced from the Ksh 200,000/= claimed), interest at court rates from filing, and costs of the suit. Dated and delivered via Microsoft Teams at Kericho on 16th June 2022 by M.C. Oundo, Environment and Land Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant had acquired proprietary rights over the suit land by long occupation or adverse possession

Holding

The Defendant had not acquired any proprietary rights; registration of parcel No. 2972 to the Plaintiffs on 13th July 2011 restarted time under the Limitation of Actions Act, and the suit filed on 16th July 2015 was within the 12-year period

Reasoning

The court found as undisputed that the Plaintiffs were registered proprietors of the suit land as from 13th July 2011. Although the Defendant and his father had occupied the disputed strip for over 30 years, no suit for adverse possession had been filed before the Plaintiffs' registration. Registration extinguished the accrued adverse possession, and time began running afresh on 13th July 2011. As the suit was filed in 2015, well within the 12-year limitation period, the Defendant could not resist the claim on limitation grounds.

p. 8
02

Whether the Defendant's continued occupation of the Plaintiffs' registered land constituted trespass

Holding

Yes - the Defendant's remaining on the suit land despite demand to vacate constituted continuing trespass

Reasoning

The court defined trespass by reference to Black's Law Dictionary, the Trespass Act and the Nguruman decision adopting Clerk and Lindsell. Each continuance of a trespass constitutes a fresh trespass creating a new cause of action daily. The Defendant, having no legal claim or title to the registered parcel, was a trespasser for as long as he remained on the land despite demand notices.

p. 10
03

What reliefs flow from the established trespass

Holding

A declaration of ownership, a perpetual injunction, general damages for trespass of Ksh 100,000/=, costs and interest

Reasoning

Having proved the Plaintiffs' title and the Defendant's trespass, the court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs. It issued a declaration that the Plaintiffs are absolute legal owners, a perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the parcel, general damages for trespass fixed at Ksh 100,000/=, interest at court rates from the date of filing suit, and costs of the suit.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A certificate of title is prima facie evidence that the named proprietor is the absolute and indefeasible owner, challengeable only on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, unprocedural acquisition or corrupt scheme
  • Registration of a new title restarts limitation for adverse possession; time runs afresh from the date of registration
  • Continuance of trespass is a fresh trespass giving rise to a new cause of action from day to day
  • Trespass to land is actionable per se and no proof of damage is necessary

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Plaintiffs are the absolute legal owners of Land Reference No. Kericho/Silibwet/2972
  2. 2.A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents or servants from interfering with parcel No. Kericho/Silibwet/2972
  3. 3.The Defendant to pay general damages for trespass at Ksh 100,000/= to the Plaintiffs
  4. 4.Costs of the suit to the Plaintiffs
  5. 5.Interest on the general damages at court rates from the date of filing suit till payment in full
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (Plaint dated 2nd July 2015, amended 17th July 2019)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chuchunei (suing as the legal representative of the estate of Samwel Rono (Deceased) & 2 others v Mosonik (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 33 of 2015) [2022] KEELC 3064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Kericho ELC (not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3064/eng@2022-06-16

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