Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedJR E006 of 2023· [2024] KEELC 4461 (KLR)

Odula v Wosianju (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 7 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 4461 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 November 2023
2,751 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Bungoma court ruled that a family who occupied land openly since 1992 acquired it through adverse possession, and the registered title was cancelled.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma (E.C. Cherono, ELC Judge, delivered 23rd May 2024) determined a Notice of Motion dated 5th April 2024 by the defendant in an adverse possession suit. The defendant, whose former counsel had ceased acting, sought leave for new advocates to come on record, an order arresting the judgment scheduled for 23rd May 2024, a review of directions on submissions, re-opening of the plaintiff's case for cross-examination of his witnesses, and leave to give evidence and file additional documents. The plaintiff opposed the application as a delaying tactic, noting the defendant had acted in person and fully participated in the trial, including cross-examining witnesses and giving his own evidence. The court reviewed the procedural history, finding the defendant was notified at every stage, was present in all sessions after his counsel ceased acting, and had sought an adjournment on medical grounds which was declined for want of supporting documents. On the law, the court applied Section 146(4) of the Evidence Act and Order 18 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules on recalling witnesses, and authorities holding that re-opening a case is a discretionary remedy exercised judiciously, not to fill gaps in evidence. The court held the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient cause, that no new evidence which could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence was shown, and that the application was brought tactically to have a second bite of the cherry. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent; the directions on submissions and the judgment date remain in force.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant proved the deceased's completion of the buying procedures of the suit land

Holding

The court found that the applicant proved the deceased completed the buying procedures

Reasoning

The court considered the evidence of the sale agreement, the letter of offer, and the decision of the purchasing committee which allocated the plot to the deceased. The court found that the applicant proved that the deceased completed all the buying procedures of the suit property before he died in 1992.

02

Whether the applicant proved actual possession or occupation of the suit land by the deceased as at the date of death in 1992

Holding

The court found that the applicant proved the deceased was in actual possession of the suit land

Reasoning

The court considered the evidence of the applicant, his siblings, and the village elders who confirmed the deceased settled on the suit property from 1992 to 1995. The court found that the evidence established actual possession and occupation by the deceased and his family from 1992 to the date of the suit.

03

Whether the applicant's claim is barred by the Public Procurement Act

Holding

The court rejected the interested party's submission that the claim was barred by the Public Procurement Act

Reasoning

The court held that the dispute concerned ownership and title to land, not procurement matters, and that the joinder of claims did not oust the court's jurisdiction to determine the ownership question.

Legal principles established

#
  • The limitation period for adverse possession runs from the date of arrival of the applicant on the land, but not from the date of registration of the title
  • Possession of land by a purchaser should be open, peaceful, public, and adverse to the title of the registered owner
  • Once the limitation period has run its course, the title holder is holding the land in trust for the adverse possessor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration be and is hereby issued that the applicant is entitled to the suit property known as N/division/Kabete/82/2 on the basis of adverse possession
  2. 2.Declaration is hereby issued that the interested party herein is not entitled to any interest in the suit property known as N/division/Kabete/82/2
  3. 3.The Land Registrar Kiambu at Limuru is hereby directed to cancel the title of the suit property registered in the name of the interested party
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 23(1) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odula v Wosianju (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 7 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 4461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). JR E006 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4461/eng@2024-05-23

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