Ngugi v Meron Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E156 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3315 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an adverse possession suit because the land titles had been revoked and the parcels effectively did not exist.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Striking out a suit premised on non-existent, revoked title
The suit was struck out because the suit properties' certificates of title were revoked by Gazette Notice 16350 of 01/12/2023 and the parcels do not exist
The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession rested on parcels whose titles the Chief Land Registrar cancelled via Gazette Notice 16350 of 01/12/2023, while Gazette Notice 16351 recognised the 2nd defendant's title. The green card extracts showed the National Government as proprietor, not the 1st defendant, so the ownership needed for an adverse possession claim could not be identified and the cause of action was fallacious.
Compliance with Order 37 Rule 7 - extract of title in adverse possession claims
The green card extracts annexed did not attest to the ownership over the period claimed (from 2007) and failed to identify the owner
Order 37 Rule 7 requires an extract of a certified copy of title whose essence is to point out with certainty the ownership of the land. The extracts attached showed ownership spanning only from 2023 and named the National Government as registered proprietor, with the 1st defendant appearing merely as an encumbrance. This did not identify the owner against whom adverse possession could run.
Adverse possession against government land
Adverse possession cannot accrue where the land is owned by the government
Although adverse possession attaches to land rather than title, the land must be identified with its owner. The green card extracts pointed to the National Government as proprietor, and since adverse possession cannot run against government-owned land, the plaintiff's claim from 2007 was legally untenable even on his own pleadings.
Exercise of the draconian power to strike out pleadings
The power is draconian and to be used sparingly, but this case fell within the narrow summary procedure of Order 2 Rule 15
The court acknowledged the striking-out power decimates an entire cause of action and must be used sparingly in plain and obvious cases which no amendment can revive. Applying that test, the court found no leg upon which the suit could stand, given the non-existent suit properties and the pending ownership dispute in ELC 139 of 2023.
Legal principles established
#- A cause of action founded on non-existent title will be struck out
- Adverse possession cannot accrue against land owned by the government
- The power to strike out pleadings is draconian and must be exercised sparingly, only in plain and obvious cases
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit (Originating Summons) is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd defendant
- 3.File is closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Laboso & 3 others (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on the Behalf of Ndakisal Farmers Group Incorporating Salangena and Ndarawetta Farmers) v New Gatundu Mixed Farmers & another; Kangethe & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 317 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3652 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 3652 (KLR)8 May 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngugi v Meron Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E156 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 3315 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons; motion dated 23/01/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3315/eng@2024-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.