Sinokho v Wandabwa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5088 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession of 21.25 acres of Bungoma/Ndalu/561
Yes - the plaintiffs proved continuous, open and uninterrupted possession for over 12 years on a balance of probabilities
Entry under the 2000 sale agreement was permissive, but upon registration of the sub-divided parcel to the deceased, possession became adverse. The later cancellation of the deceased's title restored ownership to the defendant, after which the deceased's continued occupation was adverse, since no permission was shown and the defendant took no steps to retake possession. Time began running in 2002 and expired by 2014/15.
When time began running for adverse possession
Time began running in 2002 upon cancellation of the deceased's registration
The court held the cancellation entries restored the defendant as registered proprietor; thereafter the deceased could only hold with permission or adversely. The 2001/2002 court orders did not remove the deceased from possession, and no subsequent assertion of ownership by the defendant was evidenced, so adverse occupation ran against the defendant from 2002.
Legal principles established
#- To prove title by adverse possession, possession must be adequate, continuous, public, in extent and adverse to the registered owner
- A claim of adverse possession cannot succeed where possession is permissive or under a sale agreement; possession does not become adverse before the permitted period ends
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the plaintiffs have been in adverse possession of a defined portion of land measuring 21.25 acres in Title No. Bungoma/Ndalu/561
- 2.Declaration that the Defendant's title to parcel No. Bungoma/Ndalu/561 was extinguished at the expiry of 12 years since 2002 and cancellation of the title forthwith
- 3.Declaration that the plaintiffs, as the Estate of the late John Soita Sinokho, are the proprietors of the 21.25 acres by virtue of adverse possession
- 4.Order that the Register be rectified and amended to read the Estate of John Soita Sinokho as proprietors of the suit land measuring 21.25 acres, and the mutation be amended accordingly
- 5.Each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 37 Rule 7(1)(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 4(4), 17, 37 and 38(1)(2) and (4) of the Limitation of Actions Act; Section 28(H) of the Land Registration Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sinokho v Wandabwa (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5088 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Amended Originating Summons dated 10/5/2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5088/eng@2024-06-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.