Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedOriginating Summons No. 189 of 2009 (OS NO. 189 0F 2009)· [2024] KEELC 4181 (KLR)

Mwaura v Joreth Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 189 of 2009) [2024] KEELC 4181 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 May 2024
4,380 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a Nairobi man's bid to claim land ownership through 12 years of occupation, ruling the clock stopped when the owner asserted its rights in 2002.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, through an Originating Summons dated 27/04/2009 under Order XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 7 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, sought a declaration that he had acquired title by adverse possession to Plot No. 498, Thome Farmers No. 5 Limited, now LR No. 13330/386, cancellation of the registration of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, rectification of the register in his favour, and costs. He claimed he bought the plot in 1995 for Kshs. 375,000, took a share certificate, and had occupied it continuously for over 14 years. The 1st Defendant, Joreth Limited, countered that LR No. 13330 was registered in its name on 19/12/2000, was never owned by Thome Farmers No. 5 Limited, and that its 1992 trespass suit, settled by a 2002 consent order, interrupted any possession. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants said they bought the property with vacant possession and the Plaintiff was a trespasser who began building without authority. The court framed two issues: adverse possession and costs. Applying the elements of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario possession, it found the Plaintiff's actual occupation began later than 1995, was unsupported by evidence of improvements, was unknown to the owner, and that time ceased running in 2002 when the owner asserted its rights through the consent order in HCCC No. 6206 of 1992. The suit was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession to LR No. 13330/386

Holding

The claim failed; the Plaintiff did not prove open, actual, exclusive and continuous possession for 12 years, and time stopped running in 2002 when the owner asserted its rights through the consent order in HCCC No. 6206 of 1992

Reasoning

The court found that although the sale agreement was executed in January 1995, the Plaintiff's actual occupation commenced later, construction only began in 2009, and there was no evidence of improvements or continuous residence since 1995. The owner could not have known of any dispossession, and the 1992 trespass suit and 2002 consent order returned the land to Joreth Limited, arresting the running of time. On a balance of probabilities the Plaintiff's right of action had not accrued.

p. 8
02

Whether the Plaintiff's possession was known to the registered owner

Holding

It was not; the 1st Defendant was unaware of any intrusion by the Plaintiff

Reasoning

Having found no open and physical possession evidenced by improvements or occupation, the court reasoned the owner could not have been aware of any intrusion. Moreover, the 1st Defendant had actively sued trespassers on LR No. 13330 in HCCC No. 6206 of 1992, showing vigilance rather than default or inaction.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Time under the Limitation of Actions Act ceases to run when the owner takes or asserts his right, including through legal proceedings
  • A claimant for adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse occupation for an uninterrupted period of 12 years

Court orders

#
  1. 1.On the merits, the Court found that the Plaintiff has not proved the claim that he is entitled by way of adverse possession to LR No. 13330/386 also known as Plot No. 498 in Thome Farmers No. 5 Limited registered in the joint names of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
  2. 2.The Originating Summons dated 27/04/2009 is dismissed
  3. 3.The costs of this suit are awarded to the Defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XXXVI
  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22Sections 7, 17, 18, 37, 38, 9 and 13
  • Registered Land Act (now repealed)Sections 28 and 30
  • Evidence Act Cap 80Section 107(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Mombasa Teachers Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited v Robert Muhambi Katana & 15 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kweyu –v- Omuto
    (1999) KLR 709
  • Wambugu –v- Njuguna
    (1983) KLR 173
  • Mtana Lewa –v- Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi
    (2015) eKLR
  • Richard Wefwafwa Songoi v. Ben Munyifwa Songoi
    [2020] eKLR
  • Samuel Kihamba v Mary Mbaisi
    [2015] eKLR
  • Githu vs Ndeete
    [1984] KLR 776
Jurisdiction invoked
Order XXXVI of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (first-instance land claim)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwaura v Joreth Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 189 of 2009) [2024] KEELC 4181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons No. 189 of 2009 (OS NO. 189 0F 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4181/eng@2024-05-09

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