Mae & 45 others v Nyamweya & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 141 of 2020 & 222 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 4832 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa dismissed an adverse possession claim for lack of proof and gave the registered landowners vacant possession and an injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs in ELCC No. 141 of 2020 established adverse possession
They did not; their claim was dismissed
PW1 claimed to have been born on the land in 1989 but no documentary evidence corroborated this; his father was buried in Kilifi, not on the land; the corroborating chief's letter was hearsay as the village elder was never called; and the defendants' witnesses, the 2016 Deputy Registrar's site visit report and the surveyor's evidence showed the land was vacant until 2018/2019, so possession did not run for the statutory 12 years and was interrupted by the 2015 litigation.
Whether the plaintiffs in ELCC No. 222 of 2019 (registered proprietors) are entitled to vacant possession and injunction
Yes; judgment entered in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) of the plaint
The registered proprietors' title was not contested. Having discredited the adverse possession claim, the court found the registered owners entitled to vacant possession and an injunction against the persons who invaded the land. The damages claim was rejected because damages for use and occupation presuppose a tenancy.
Costs
The successful plaintiffs in ELCC No. 222 of 2019 are awarded costs in both suits under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Costs follow the event unless there is good reason to depart from that principle. Since the plaintiffs in ELCC No. 222 of 2019 succeeded both in their claim and in defending ELCC No. 141 of 2020, they were entitled to costs in both suits.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant seeking title by adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse use for the statutory period without interruption
- Abandonment of possession by an owner does not by itself establish adverse possession; the claimant must take possession with animus possidendi asserting rights inconsistent with the owner's title
- The burden of proof in civil suits lies on the party who alleges
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs in ELCC No. 141 of 2020 failed to prove their case and their claim is dismissed with costs.
- 2.Judgment entered for the plaintiffs in ELCC No. 222 of 2019 against the defendants in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) of the plaint dated 22nd November 2019 (vacant possession, permanent injunction).
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (adverse possession and possession claims relating to parcels 11286/I/MN and 11287/I/MN)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mae & 45 others v Nyamweya & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 141 of 2020 & 222 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 4832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELCC No. 141 of 2020 (consolidated with ELCC No. 222 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4832/eng@2025-06-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.