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 dated 1st February, 2021 (amended 10th May 2022)· [2024] KEELC 6269 (KLR)

Kathare v Muriungi (Sued as the legal administrator of Muchoka Nkariro –Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 6269 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 September 2024
4,649 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a man's claim to 10 acres of family land, ruling that shared or occasional use of land does not amount to adverse possession without exclusive occupation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an originating summons brought under Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in which the plaintiff claimed to have acquired 10 acres out of land parcel No. Tharaka/Marimanti/1582 by adverse possession since 1973, seeking to be registered as proprietor in place of the estate of Muchoka Nkariro (deceased), whose legal representative was the defendant. The plaintiff testified that he was given the land for cultivation in 1973 and had occupied it openly and without interference. However, under cross-examination he admitted that he owns his own parcel No. 1949 on which he lives, resides in Irarani Village about five kilometres from the suit land, and that the defendant and his family occupy and live on the suit land. The defendant, who was born and raised on the land, denied the plaintiff's occupation and alleged boundary encroachment, producing a letter from the District Land Registrar indicating a boundary dispute. The court framed two issues: whether the plaintiff proved adverse possession to the required standard and whether he was entitled to the reliefs sought. Applying Wambugu v Njuguna, Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Mwangandi and Gabriel Mbui v Mukindia Maranya, the court held that adverse possession requires exclusive, open, peaceful and continuous occupation adverse to the registered owner, and that common use of land cannot displace the true owner. Finding no evidence of exclusive possession or dispossession for over twelve years, the court dismissed the suit with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff proved adverse possession of 10 acres out of the suit land

Holding

The claim failed; the plaintiff did not prove exclusive occupation for the statutory period

Reasoning

The plaintiff admitted he owns and lives on another parcel, lives in Irarani Village about 5 kilometres away, and that the defendant and his family occupy and live on the suit land. No evidence was tendered to show how the claimed 10 acres were identified or that his occupation was exclusive, open, peaceful and continuous for over 12 years. The defendant was therefore never dispossessed for the statutory period.

p. 8
02

Whether joint or common use of land by a claimant and the true owner can ground adverse possession

Holding

No; exclusive possession by the claimant with the true owner out of possession is required

Reasoning

Relying on Gabriel Mbui v Mukindia Maranya, the court held that it is a fallacy to assume that where two people live on the same land, any part of it is in law in the possession of the person cultivating it. Use of land in common with the true owner cannot defeat the registered proprietor's title under the Limitation of Actions Act.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A claimant for adverse possession must prove exclusive possession, and it is insufficient to prove use of land in common with the true owner
  • Elements of adverse possession: occupation of over twelve years, open, peaceful and continuous, adverse to the registered owner

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 13(1) and (2)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38(1)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 37
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 Rule 7

Cases cited (13)

  • Ruth Wangari Kanyagia vs Josephine Muthoni Kinyanjui
    [2017] eKLR
  • Hawa Alodilahi vs Isaac Ndege Arap Chumo (sued separate as administrator of the estate of Malakwen A. Chego
    [2019] eKLR
  • Ali Wanje Ziro vs Abdulbasit Abeid Said & Another
    [2022] eKLR
  • Wambugu vs Njuguna
    (1983) KLR 173 / [1983] eKLR
  • Mtana Lewa Vs Kahindi Mwangandi
    [2015] eKLR
  • Kimani Ruchure vs Swift Rutherfords & Co. Ltd
    (1980) KLR 10
  • Gabriel Mbui vs Mukindia Maranya
    [1993] eKLR
  • Maweu vs. Liu Ranching and Farming Cooperative Society
    1985 KLR 430
  • George Ogake Pius -vs- Esther Nyasani Makori & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Athman Bwana and Alim Bwanhave v Haji Abdulla Ibrahim and Hussein Hayi Abdul Irehman
    (1948) 15 EACA 7
  • Ahmed Abdulkarim and Another v Memner for Lands and Mines and Another
    (1971) EA
  • Jandu v Kirpal and Another
    (1975) EA 225
  • Gatimu Kingura v Muya Gathangi
    (1976) KLR 253
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules (application by originating summons)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kathare v Muriungi (Sued as the legal administrator of Muchoka Nkariro –Deceased) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 6269 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons dated 1st February, 2021 (amended 10th May 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6269/eng@2024-09-25

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