Mreko v Sillas (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5844 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kwale court gave a man full ownership of 4.8 hectares he openly occupied since 2000, confirming 12 years of uninterrupted possession defeats a registered owner's title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiff has shown (on the balance of probability) that he acquired the property by way of land adverse possession
- 2.Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the prayers in the originating summons/plaint
- 3.Who will bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff acquired title to Kwale/Ng'ombeni ADJ/714 by adverse possession
Yes - the Plaintiff proved open, continuous, uninterrupted and notorious possession since the year 2000, exceeding the statutory 12-year period, without the consent of the registered owner, so his right accrued in 2000 and title vested by 2024.
The court applied Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the case law requiring possession to be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. The Plaintiff testified he moved onto the land in 2000, built houses, cultivated crops, and lived there openly with his family; corroborating witnesses confirmed over 15-25 years of occupation and that the Respondent was never seen on the land. No evidence showed the Defendant retook possession or ousted the Plaintiff. Possession being a matter of fact, the adverse character was a legal conclusion drawn from those proved facts.
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the prayers in the originating summons
Yes - the Plaintiff made out a case for adverse possession having proved possession for over 12 years, entitling him to the declarations and orders sought, subject to the court's discretion.
The court held that although uncontroverted evidence does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proof, the Plaintiff discharged it. Given that orders for adverse possession result in extinction of the right to property, the burden is higher, but the Plaintiff demonstrated the requirements: exclusive, open, peaceful and continuous possession adverse to the registered owner for over 12 years, evidenced by the green card and certificate of official search and corroborated testimony.
Who bears the costs of the suit
The Plaintiff, having proved his claim, is awarded the costs of the suit under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, subject to the court's discretion which must consider the circumstances of each case. As the Plaintiff proved his claim against the Defendant, the ordinary rule applied and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- Unchallenged plaintiff evidence still does not escape the burden and standard of proof
- Rights of a registered owner are extinguished in favour of an adverse possessor after 12 years
- Adverse possession requires possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario - without force, secrecy or permission
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff as per the Plaint dated 14th August, 2024
- 2.Declaration that the Applicant has been in open, continuous, uninterrupted and notorious possession of land parcel Kwale/Ng'ombeni ADJ/714 measuring approximately 4.8 HA for a period exceeding 12 years since the year 2000
- 3.Order that the rights of David Katiso Sillas over the suit land got extinguished by adverse possession upon expiry of 12 years from the date the Applicant came into possession in the year 2000
- 4.Order that the Applicant has acquired title to the suit land by virtue of adverse possession
- 5.Order that the Respondent be perpetually barred from taking and/or using the suit land
- 6.Order that the Applicant be registered as proprietor of the entire land parcel Kwale/Ng'ombeni ADJ/714
- 7.Respondent to execute all relevant documents to facilitate transfer; in default the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court to execute the same in place of the Respondent
- 8.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintifi as per the Plaint dated 14th August, 2024.
That an order do and hereby issues that the Respondent be perpetually barred from taking and or using the entire land parcel number Kwale/Ng'ombeni ADJ/714 measuring approximately 4.8 HA which the Applicant has been in possession of from the year 2000 to date.
That this Honourable Court do issue an order that the Applicant be registered as the proprietor of the entire land parcel number Kwale/Ng'ombeni ADJ/714 measuring approximately 4.8 HA.
That the costs of the suit shall be in favour of the Plaintifi.
Where a Defendant fails to adduce evidence in support of the Defence and fails to attend court to prosecute the case, the Plaintifi’s evidence escapes the possibility of being controverted by defence evidence.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal chronology contradiction: the hearing was said to be on 17th March 2025, yet the judgment also states further hearing dates in 2023 and 2024
PW-2's evidence contradicts the claim of long adverse possession by stating the land was not the Plaintiff's
The court's finding that the Defendant 'had not been on the suit property for more than 12 years' is ambiguously phrased and sits awkwardly with the possession findings
The date of judgment is left blank in the body of the judgment and appears only in the delivery clause
Duplicate quotation of Section 13 of the Limitation of Actions Act presented as a separate provision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mreko v Sillas (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5844 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons/Plaint filed 14th August 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5844/eng@2025-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.