Lekeriyo v Telkom Kenya & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 110 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 711 (KLR)
The bottom line
#After 25 years occupying a farmer's land for its telecom facility, Telkom Kenya won ownership of 1.08 acres in Kenya through adverse possession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Defendant acquired a legal or equitable interest in plot 160 by purchase
No - no credible evidence connected Plot 12 Poro B (bought from Philip for Kshs. 4,000) with Plot 160
KPTC identified land for purchase and paid Kshs. 4,000 through the council, but no credible evidence linked Plot 12 Poro B to Plot 160. The land adjudication officer was not called, the site was shifted 30 metres north, and the 1st Defendant's witness conceded there was no evidence of connection and a possibility the facility lies on the wrong plot.
Whether the 1st Defendant acquired title by adverse possession to 1.08 acres
Yes - occupation since 1993 (or 1987-1990 construction) for over 25 years with animus possidendi extinguished the Plaintiff's right to recover
The Plaintiff pleaded the 1st Defendant entered in 1993 and never took legal steps until 2018. He was registered on 28.2.1993 and even worked as the 1st Defendant's security guard. Over 25 years lapsed since accrual of the cause of action; maintaining the telecommunication facility demonstrated animus possidendi.
Whether the 2nd Defendant trespassed on plot 160
Yes - the 2nd Defendant entered in November 2016 and continued using a graded access road through plot 160 rather than plot 159's official access road
The court believed the Plaintiff and PW3 that the 2nd Defendant entered in November 2016 before relocating to Plot 159. The lease with Plot 159's owner is dated 26.03.2017. The 2nd Defendant conceded using a 'convenient' graded route through the Plaintiff's land rather than the official route, so trespass on a balance of probabilities was proved.
Whether the 3rd Defendant was negligent in the land adjudication process
No - the 1st Defendant failed to prove negligence; it was KPTC or the 1st Defendant that was negligent in failing to protect its interest
No evidence showed KPTC or the 1st Defendant engaged the land adjudication officer, followed up with the council, or registered any encumbrance claiming a purchaser's interest. The counterclaim against the undefended 3rd Defendant was accordingly dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of adverse possession: exclusive, open possession as of right without interruption for 12 years, and title by adverse possession can be acquired for part of the land
- At the expiry of 12 years the proprietor's title is extinguished by operation of law and the burden lies on the adverse possessor to prove possession without the true owner's permission
- An adverse possessor in occupation of a facility is entitled to a right of way to access it under the doctrine of necessity
- Costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act unless the court for good reason directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit against the 1st Defendant is dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs
- 2.The Plaintiff is awarded Kshs. 200,000 as general damages for trespass against the 2nd Defendant only together with costs of the claim
- 3.The 1st Defendant's counter-claim against the 3rd Defendant is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 4.A declaration is made that the 1st Defendant has become entitled to be registered as proprietor of a portion of 1.08 acres in its possession out of Title No. Samburu/Poro B/160 on account of the doctrine of adverse possession
- 5.Any relief sought which has not been specifically granted is deemed to have been denied
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims and counterclaim (Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lekeriyo v Telkom Kenya & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 110 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 711 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Suit (Samburu/Maralal) - Judgment delivered at Mombasa. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/711/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.