George v Omuse (Sued as the Legal Representative of Basil Pamba Okomuli alias Omuse Opama Ikom (Deceased)) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 9 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 3804 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Busia court handed a family land to a man who openly farmed and built on it for over 12 years without the owner's permission.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's father purchased parcel South Teso/Apokor/1350
The court found on the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 that the applicant's father bought the remaining portion of parcel 697 from which parcel 1350 was created; the absence of a written agreement could not be raised because actions founded on contract are time-barred after six years
PW3 and PW4, who were present at the sale, corroborated the applicant's account. The court held itself estopped from examining the validity of the contract by section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the alleged 1986 contract having become unenforceable by 1992, whether oral or written.
Whether the applicant proved adverse possession for over twelve years
Yes. The applicant had been in open, exclusive possession from 1990 (or at latest from the respondent's inability to use the land in 1996), so the respondent's title was extinguished under section 18 of the Limitation of Actions Act and she holds the title in trust for the applicant
The applicant demonstrated animus possidendi by constructing permanent houses, planting trees and cultivating the land. The respondent admitted she had never used the land since marrying because the applicant chased her away and took no steps to recover possession. The court found gaps in the defence evidence, including the uncorroborated claim that the respondent's father was buried on the suit parcel.
Costs of the suit
Despite the applicant succeeding, each party was ordered to bear their own costs
The final order directed that each party meet their respective costs of the suit, departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
Legal principles established
#- Under section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, actions founded on contract may not be brought after six years, so the validity of an old oral sale cannot be litigated when a claim is framed in adverse possession
- A claimant for adverse possession must demonstrate peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted occupation of the claimed land for a period in excess of twelve years
Court orders
#- 1.Declared that the applicant has acquired by adverse possession the whole land parcel known as South Teso/Apokor/1350
- 2.Ordered the respondent to execute transfer documents for South Teso/Apokor/1350 in favour of the applicant within sixty (60) days, failing which the Deputy Registrar shall execute the same to facilitate registration in the applicant's name
- 3.Each party to meet their respective costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22), section 7, in a claim for adverse possession
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George v Omuse (Sued as the Legal Representative of Basil Pamba Okomuli alias Omuse Opama Ikom (Deceased)) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 9 of 2012) [2022] KEELC 3804 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Originating Summons dated October 24, 2012 (re-amended June 16, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3804/eng@2022-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.