Sigei v Cheruiyot (Environment & Land Case 124 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 5984 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kericho dismissed a woman's claim to land by adverse possession because she could not prove twelve years of continuous occupation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff acquired land parcel No. Nakuru/Tinet/Sotik/573 by adverse possession
The claim fails. Possession between 1997 and 2005 cannot count because the land was unregistered public land, and the Plaintiff did not prove twelve years of continuous, open, exclusive and peaceful adverse possession from 2005 when the Defendant was registered
The green card showed the land was first registered to the Government on 12th October 2005, so adverse possession could not run against the Government before that date. From 2005, the Plaintiff's evidence on when she lost possession was contradictory (2005, 2017 or 2018), her witnesses spoke only of pre-2005 possession, the Defendant's sister was in occupation, and the parties' disputes and tribunal proceedings rendered her possession neither exclusive nor peaceful. The twelve-year period was therefore not established.
Whether the pending tribunal award and allegations of fraudulent acquisition defeat an adverse possession claim
The court proceeds on the assumption that ownership is not in dispute; evidence of fraudulent acquisition is inconsequential since the claim is one of adverse possession and parties are bound by their pleadings
A claim of ownership by way of adverse possession presupposes that ownership is not in dispute; the claimant must attach or produce documents of title in respect of the suit land. Allegations that the title was fraudulently or illegally acquired fall outside the pleaded claim, and the unappealed Land Disputes Appeals Committee award of 13th November 2007 did not by itself determine the adverse possession question, though the disputes it evidenced bore on the peacefulness of possession.
Who bears the costs of the suit
The Defendant, as the successful party, is awarded costs under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
The general rule is that costs follow the event and a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise. No such reason exists here.
Legal principles established
#- Adverse possession cannot accrue against land owned by the Government; Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act excludes public land from the application of the Act
- The limitation period for purposes of adverse possession only starts running after registration of the land in the name of the Respondent
- A claimant for adverse possession must prove actual, open, continuous and peaceful possession for the requisite twelve years; all elements must be met
- Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22); Originating Summons under Order 37 Rules 3, 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sigei v Cheruiyot (Environment & Land Case 124 of 2018) [2024] KEELC 5984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Environment & Land Case 124 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5984/eng@2024-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.