Bashora & 75 others v Riverside Farm Malindi Limited (Environment & Land Case 63 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 5150 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi dismissed a 15-year adverse possession claim because occupants failed to prove continuous, peaceful occupation after being compensated and resettled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was adequately represented despite the name discrepancy and the late filing of the Board Resolution
The Respondent was adequately represented. The omission of 'Malindi' from Riverside Farm Limited was a mere misdescription, and the Board Resolution of 30th June 2022 expressly authorised and ratified David Pola Mramba's acts.
The court adopted the principle that misdescription of a party is curable and not fatal, and that no evidence showed two separate entities. DW1 confirmed the Respondent was popularly known as Riverside Farm Limited. The Board Resolution authorised David Pola Mramba and Michael Mugindo Charo to represent the company and ratified the advocates' work; such a resolution may be filed any time before the close of proceedings.
Whether the Applicants acquired Plot No. M28 Malindi by adverse possession
No. The Applicants failed to prove continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation; they were compensated and resettled on a portion of the land, fenced off from the remainder, and their entry into the disputed area was not with the Respondent's acquiescence.
The court found the compensation and resettlement agreements valid, some compensation having been paid to the Applicants' parents and relatives. The letter of 30th April 2015 showed the signatories acknowledged the Respondent's ownership. The site visit confirmed the Applicants occupied only the residential area demarcated by a fence they destroyed. Incursions were reported to police, negating peaceful occupation.
Legal principles established
#- A misdescription of a party's name, such as omitting a word from a company name, is not fatal to proceedings and does not defeat a party's cause of action.
- A company's Board Resolution authorising an agent to act in court may be filed at any time before the close of proceedings; its absence at the outset is not fatal.
- To succeed in adverse possession, a claimant must prove continuous, open, notorious and exclusive possession for at least 12 years without force, secrecy or permission of the owner.
- Possession under licence, agreement or permission of the owner is not adverse possession.
Court orders
#- 1.The Originating Summons dated 6th August 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act, Section 38, to order registration of a claimant entitled by adverse possession
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.
- Riverside Farm Malindi Limited v Dala & 81 others (Environment and Land Case E116 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7953 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7953 (KLR)18 Nov 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bashora & 75 others v Riverside Farm Malindi Limited (Environment & Land Case 63 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 5150 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons dated 6th August 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5150/eng@2024-07-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.