Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC OS No. 25 of 2021 (Formerly Migori ELC OS No. E017 of 2021)· [2022] KEELC 14470 (KLR)

Jabes Obunga Manyala v Grace Odeny Ouko & Kennedy Odhiambo Odek

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
25 October 2022
1,799 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a man's 40-year land claim because he had entered the property with the owner's permission, which legally blocks an adverse possession claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, by originating summons dated April 20, 2021 (transferred from Migori ELC to the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay and treated as a plaint under Order 37 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules), claimed to have acquired title to land parcel Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1555 (1.43 Ha) by adverse possession, having allegedly occupied it openly, peacefully and continuously since 1978. He sought a declaration that the defendants' rights were barred under the Limitation of Actions Act, an order for his registration as proprietor, an injunction against the 2nd respondent, and consequential orders. The 2nd respondent, registered proprietor since December 18, 2020 by purchase from the 1st respondent, contended the claim was a boundary dispute disguised as adverse possession. Adopting the three dictates from Wilson Kazungu Katana, the court found the land was registered in the 2nd respondent's name; that the plaintiff entered with the permission of the previous owners (Ogot Mimbi and Ogalo Mimbi families) and was not in exclusive possession, the 2nd respondent also using the land; and that the registered owner had not been dispossessed. Permission negates adversity. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden under sections 107-110 of the Evidence Act on a balance of probabilities. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession

Holding

No; the plaintiff entered with permission of the previous owner, was not in exclusive possession, and the registered owner had not been dispossessed

Reasoning

The court applied the three dictates from Wilson Kazungu Katana: registration in another's name, open exclusive adverse possession, and occupation exceeding twelve years dispossessing the owner. The plaintiff admitted occupation was permissive; PW3 confirmed the 2nd defendant also used the land. Permission negates adversity, and continued possession by the registered owner defeats the claim.

p. 4
02

Burden of proof on an adverse possession claim

Holding

The plaintiff bore the burden under sections 107-110 of the Evidence Act and failed to discharge it on a balance of probabilities

Reasoning

The court held that even taking the whole matter into account, the plaintiff had to satisfy the evidential burden under sections 107 to 110 of the Evidence Act. Having failed to prove the dictates of adverse possession against the defendants on a balance of probabilities, the defendants' firm case prevailed and the suit was dismissed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Adverse possession requires the land to be registered in a name other than the applicant, open exclusive adverse possession, and occupation in excess of twelve years dispossessing the owner
  • Where the claimant was given permission by the owner to be in possession, adverse possession does not arise

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 37 rule 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 15
  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22, Laws of Kenya)sections 37 and 38
  • Land Registration Act, 2012sections 24, 25, 26 and 30
  • Evidence Act (Cap 80, Laws of Kenya)sections 107 to 110

Cases cited (8)

  • Great Lakes Transport (U) Company Ltd v Kenya Revenue Authority
    (2009) KLR 720

    Issues for determination flow from the pleadings or as framed by the parties

  • Wilson Kazungu Katana and 101 others v Salim Abdallah Bakshwein and another
    2015 eKLR

    Three dictates of adverse possession

  • Gatimu Kinguru v Muya Gatahngi
    1976-80 1 KLR 317

    Adverse possession should be for the whole or a defined portion of land

  • Ruth Wangari Kinyagia v Josephine Muthoni Kinyanjui
    2017 KLR

    Entry must be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario

  • Virginia Wanjiku Mwangi v David Mwangi Jotham Kamau
    2013 KLR

    Permission to occupy defeats adverse possession

  • Ramco Investment Ltd v Uni-Drive Theatre Ltd
    2018 KLR

    Occupation open and continuous but consensual and not exclusive is not adverse

  • Salim v Boyd
    1971 EA 550

    Procedure for adverse possession claims by originating summons

  • Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, volume 28

    Owner who has not ceased to possess cannot be dispossessed

Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land situate in Homa Bay County; suit transferred from Migori ELC

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jabes Obunga Manyala v Grace Odeny Ouko & Kennedy Odhiambo Odek", Case Analysis (2022). ELC OS No. 25 of 2021 (Formerly Migori ELC OS No. E017 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14470/eng@2022-10-25

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