Ruto & 6 others v Gianchore Tea Factory & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6101 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved adverse possession of Transmara/Moyoi/56 and 57
No. The plaintiffs failed to prove actual occupation and open/notorious use; the photographs were never produced as exhibits, no independent witnesses were called, and the Land Registrar's report was discredited for contradicting the photographs.
The court set out the six elements of adverse possession from Andafu vs. Akhuonya and examined whether they were met. Only two of seven plaintiffs testified; no chief, village elder or neighbour corroborated notoriety. The photographs were only marked for identification and thus carried no evidential value. The survey report lacked photographs or acreage, and the Land Registrar's testimony that houses had iron-sheet roofs contradicted the grass-thatched photographs, so his evidence was disregarded.
From what date time ran for adverse possession given the land's history as public land under adjudication
Time ran only from registration on 02.03.2001, accruing after 12 years on about 02.03.2013; occupation between 1989 and 2001 was immaterial.
The properties were public land declared an adjudication section under the Land Adjudication Act. Being public land, they were excepted from the Limitation of Actions Act by section 41. Consequently, pre-registration occupation could not found an adverse possession claim, and time started in 2001 upon first registration of the suit parcels.
Whether the plaintiffs' possession was consensual under agreements for sale, as the defendants contended
The court did not reach this question, having found the occupation and notoriety elements unproven.
The defendants argued entry was consensual under agreements of sale and relied on Muchanga Investments. The common witness Paul Koinyatto testified he rescinded the agreements, refunded the plaintiffs and evicted them, and that they were not in occupation when he sold in 2013. The court declined to examine further elements once two core elements failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where suit land was public land before registration, time for adverse possession only begins to run from the date of first registration, and prior occupation is immaterial
- Documents merely marked for identification and not formally produced as exhibits have no evidential value
- The burden of proving adverse possession lies on the person alleging it, guided by sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendants/Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over a claim for adverse possession of land parcels Transmara/Moyoi/56 and Transmara/Moyoi/57, pursuant to sections 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruto & 6 others v Gianchore Tea Factory & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6101 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 3rd August 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6101/eng@2025-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.