Sila v Al Haiee Investments Limited & 5 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1030 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 966 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a 20-year adverse possession claim because the claimant couldn't prove exclusive, peaceful occupation for 12 continuous years.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of Diamond Hashim Lalji to testify for the 1st Defendant
The Notice of Change of Directors dated 18th October, 2007 sufficed to prove that Mr Lalji is a director duly authorized to give evidence on behalf of the 1st Defendant; the unsigned letter of 22nd May, 2015 had no probative value and the 5th and 6th Defendants' untested Defence could not displace his authority
The court noted that directorship is relevant only to admissibility of evidence, as it has no jurisdiction over company directorship questions. Relying on Meya Agri Traders, a deponent who swears he is a director and duly authorized is presumed correct unless contradicted. The plaintiff's contrary documents were irrelevant letters or an unsigned letter, and the 5th and 6th Defendants' assertions were unsubstantiated as they never testified. Perpetual succession also permits a director to testify to pre-appointment matters within his knowledge.
Whether the Plaintiff proved adverse possession of the suit property
The claim failed: the Plaintiff did not prove actual, open, exclusive, peaceful and continuous possession for 12 years
Although the Plaintiff claimed entry in March 1995, corroborated by PW2, the assertions were undocumented. The Deputy Registrar's site report showed the Plaintiff posed as a caretaker; the plaintiffs in ELC 1264/2013 never mentioned him as occupier; and the 1st Defendant leased the land for billboards in 2008, showing the Plaintiff lacked exclusive possession. Since a title holder cannot be in concurrent possession with an adverse possessor, the plea of adverse possession could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- The net effect of sections 7, 13 and 17 of the Limitation of Actions Act is to extinguish the title of the proprietor of land in favour of a party who has been in possession for a minimum of 12 years
- In a claim for adverse possession, the burden of proof is on the person setting up the claim, on a balance of probability
- In a claim for adverse possession against registered land, adverse possession dates from the date the Certificate of Title was issued
- Exclusive possession means that the exercise of dominion over the land must not be shared with the owner
- Where a party fails to call evidence in support of his case, his pleadings remain mere unsubstantiated statements of fact
- Once a deponent swears he is a director of a company and duly authorized, the court cannot rule otherwise absent contradicting evidence
- An unsigned document has no probative value
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's Originating Summons dated 18th August, 2016 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sila v Al Haiee Investments Limited & 5 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1030 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 18th August, 2016 (ELC, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/966/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.