Karisa & 67 others v Haji & 18 others (Sued in their capacity as the beneficiaries to the Estate of Ahmed Bin Haji Barawa) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 191 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a land adverse possession claim and ordered 68 squatters evicted, awarding the owner KSh 5 million in damages.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs proved adverse possession of Plot No. MN/II/402
The claim failed: the Plaintiffs did not prove when they entered, exclusive non-permissive possession for 12 years, or the specific portions claimed; only the 1st Plaintiff, a caretaker, produced documents, and the survey evidence showed occupation intensified only from about 2016.
The court applied Sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the elements in Kimani Ruchure, Gabriel Mbui and Wilson Kazungu Katana: the claimant must show actual, open, exclusive, non-permissive and uninterrupted possession for 12 years and identify the land claimed. None of the 65 co-plaintiffs testified or filed documents; identity cards showed districts of birth elsewhere; the burial-site claim was unsupported; and Google imagery evidence showed only one permanent structure until about 2003-2016. The 1st Plaintiff's occupation was permissive as caretaker. The claim was dismissed.
Whether the Defendants made out their Counter-Claim for declaration of ownership, eviction, injunction and damages
The Counter-Claim succeeded: the Defendants proved registration of Ahmed Bin Haji Barawa as proprietor, administration of the estate by the 4th Defendant, and the Plaintiffs' trespass; they obtained a declaration of ownership, eviction order, permanent injunction and Kshs. 5,000,000 general damages.
Relying on Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act and Section 152A of the Land Act, the court found the Defendants' registered title indefeasible and the Plaintiffs' continued occupation to be trespass under the Trespass Act. Applying the damages principles in Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd v Ringera and Duncan Nderitu Ndegwa, and having evidence of structures erected on the land, the court awarded general damages for trespass/loss of use of Kshs. 5,000,000.
Entitlement to prayers and costs
The Plaintiffs, having failed to prove their case on a balance of probabilities, were not entitled to the prayers in the plaint; the Defendants, having proved their counterclaim, obtained their prayers; costs followed the event to the Defendants on both claim and counterclaim.
The court invoked Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act principle that costs follow the event, citing Levben Products v Alexander Films and related authorities, holding that the successful party is typically entitled to costs absent compelling reasons. The Plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs and the Counter-Claim allowed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant seeking title by adverse possession must prove non-permissive, actual, open, notorious, exclusive and adverse occupation for 12 years and must identify with precision the portion of land claimed.
- Possession enjoyed with the consent of the registered owner, such as that of a caretaker or licensee, cannot ripen into adverse possession.
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership of the person named as proprietor.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Defendants in respect to the Statement of Defence and the Counter-Claim dated 10th November, 2021 with costs
- 2.The Plaintiffs' claim in respect to the Originating Summons/Plaint dated 14th October, 2020 found to have no merit and dismissed with costs
- 3.A declaration that the Defendants are the legal registered and absolute owners and proprietors of all that property known as Plot No. Mainland Section II/402 measuring approximately 5.96 hectares with all the indefeasible rights, interest and titles thereof
- 4.An order evicting the Plaintiffs from Plot No. 402/Section II/Mainland pursuant to Section 152E of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012, with the OCS and OCPD Bamburi/Utange to intervene and use reasonable force to assist enforcement upon failure
- 5.A Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the Plaintiffs from entering upon, re-entering, trespassing onto, laying a claim to, building on, interfering with and/or dealing in the Defendants' property Plot No. 402/Section II/Mainland
- 6.The Defendants awarded damages for loss of use of the property and/or general damages for trespass to the tune of Kshs. 5,000,000/-
- 7.Costs of both the Originating Summons/Plaint and the Counter-Claim awarded to the Defendants
- 8.Parties at liberty to explore out-of-court negotiation pursuant to Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution and Sections 20(1) & (2) of the Environment & Land Court Act, with a mention on 26th September, 2025
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ngigi & another v Mhasibu Housing Company Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E210 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4228 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4228 (KLR)14 May 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karisa & 67 others v Haji & 18 others (Sued in their capacity as the beneficiaries to the Estate of Ahmed Bin Haji Barawa) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 191 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 6107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Mombasa ELC Originating Summons dated 14th October 2020 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6107/eng@2025-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.