Oyando & 2 others v Kenya Muslim Charitable Trust (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 305 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 796 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Machakos dismissed a long-term occupants' adverse possession claim because they sued the wrong party, alleged fraud inconsistently, and couldn't prove exclusive occupation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs sued the registered owner of the suit property
The claim failed because the plaintiffs sued KMCS but not the registered trustees in whose names the title stood.
The title showed the registered owners as Omar Kassim Abikar, Dabar Abdi Maalim and Hassan Isaak Ali as trustees, following the name change to KMCS and deed of rectification registered on 8/05/2002. Despite producing the title, the plaintiffs only sued KMCS. Failure to properly sue the registered owner was fatal to the adverse possession claim.
Whether fraud could be pleaded together with adverse possession
No; the twin claims are incompatible. A claimant alleging fraudulent acquisition must pursue rectification of title instead.
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's approval of Haro Yonda Juaje, holding that it does not lie in the mouth of a claimant alleging the registered proprietor's title was fraudulently acquired to simultaneously claim the same land under the doctrine of adverse possession; the proper cause of action would be rectification under Section 143 of the Registered Land Act.
Whether the plaintiffs proved exclusive occupation of identifiable portions of the suit property
They did not; other persons/families occupied the property and were not shown to be tenants, defeating the claim.
Although the plaintiffs claimed sole occupation, cross-examination revealed three to four other persons or families (Baba Mohamed, Mwanaidi, Ali and Hamisi Mashallah) in occupation. No tenancy agreements or proof of rental payments were tendered, so these occupants were on the same footing as the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also failed to identify the apartments, sizes and locations each occupied.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant seeking title by adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse occupation for an uninterrupted period of 12 years (nec vi nec clam nec precario).
- A claim of fraud and a claim of adverse possession cannot be pursued together; a claimant who alleges fraudulent acquisition of the registered proprietor's title must seek rectification, not adverse possession.
- Identification of the specific land in the possession of the adverse possessor is an integral part of proving adverse possession.
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' originating summons seeking a declaration of extinguishment of the defendant's rights by adverse possession, registration of the plaintiffs as proprietors, and registration as tenants in common is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Statutory claim under Sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act; Section 38(1) confers jurisdiction on the High Court (with like jurisdiction in the Environment and Land Court) to order registration of a claimant entitled by adverse possession
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Oyando & 2 others v Kenya Muslim Charitable Trust (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 305 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 796 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 19/09/2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/796/eng@2025-02-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.