Omollo v Nyamunga (Land Case 53 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 120 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kisumu Environment and Land Court dismissed a man's adverse possession claim because he could not prove 12 years of open, exclusive occupation of the land.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff's entry was adverse, i.e. with the owner's knowledge but without permission
Not proved; no evidence the defendant knew of the plaintiff's entry before 2020
The plaintiff's entry was on the basis of his relationship with his father whom he claimed owned the land. He adduced no evidence that the defendant knew of his entry before 2020. The defendant's account that the plaintiff trespassed in 2020 during the Covid-19 lockdown was found credible.
Whether the plaintiff had 12 years' open, exclusive and uninterrupted possession
Not proved; the plaintiff was inconsistent on how long he had lived there and produced no corroborative evidence of developments
The plaintiff deposed to 47 years' residence but testified to over 20 years and could not fix when exclusive occupation began, so time could not be determined. He produced no photographs, surveyor's report or building approvals for the alleged 15 houses. All his actions in respect of the land appeared to have begun in 2020.
Whether the defendant's title was extinguished under section 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act
No; title not extinguished, and the registered title is protected
Having failed to prove adverse entry and 12 years' possession, the plaintiff had no basis to impeach title. The defendant proved registration in 1986 through a land certificate, transfer and receipts. Alleged fraud and mistake were not proved to the required degree.
Jurisdictional objection that the claim is an ancestral land/succession claim disguised as adverse possession
The court decided the claim on its merits as an adverse possession claim rather than upholding the objection
The defendant submitted, relying on Mukisa Biscuits and section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, that the court lacked jurisdiction over ancestral land claims disguised as adverse possession. The court did not strike out the suit on this ground but determined the three adverse possession elements and dismissed the claim on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant who asserts the land was given to him by his father, i.e. that it is his own, cannot sustain adverse possession over it
- A claimant alleging fraudulent registration cannot simultaneously claim the same land under adverse possession
- The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove over 12 years' occupation, and photographic or surveyor evidence aids proof of developments in adverse possession claims
Court orders
#- 1.The suit vide the Originating Summons dated 27th August 2020 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs to the Defendant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omollo v Nyamunga (Land Case 53 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 120 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Land Case 53 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/120/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.