Ligati v Kedemi (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6460 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a Migori landowner's appeal, confirming he was bound by arguments never raised at trial.
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 trial court erred in issuing a permanent injunction against the Appellant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant could raise adverse possession for the first time on appeal
No - the issue was not pleaded at trial and cannot be introduced on appeal
The court reviewed the pleadings and found adverse possession was never raised in the defence or by counterclaim. It relied on the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, citing Nuh Nassir Abdi, Philip Mungu Ndolo (noted in Munya), John Munuve Mati, Postal Corporation and Kenya Hotels. It characterized the ground as an afterthought by a drowning party grasping at reeds.
Whether the Respondent's title to the suit land was proved
Yes - the Respondent produced a title registered in his name on 27/2/2014 and no contrary evidence was tendered
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act renders the certificate of title prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership. The Appellant alleged a pending Kisii suit against the vendors but produced no documentary evidence of it, and never challenged the Respondent's title. The Assistant Chief confirmed the Appellant had never bought parcel 718.
Whether the Appellant could sue on behalf of Semina Adhiambo
No - no registered Power of Attorney or pleaded representative capacity was produced, so the claim of representation was of no avail
Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a party suing or sued in a representative capacity to state that capacity and how it arises. The Appellant testified he acted for Semina Adhiambo but his pleadings were bereft of any registered Power of Attorney, making the representation an afterthought and irrelevant to the trespass finding.
Legal principles established
#- A party is bound by his pleadings and cannot introduce a fresh issue, such as adverse possession, on appeal when it was never pleaded or raised by counterclaim at trial
- A certificate of title is prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership, challengeable only on fraud, misrepresentation, or illegal/unprocedural acquisition
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.Permanent injunction against the Appellant upheld
- 3.Order that the Appellant vacate the suit land upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court
- not stated in judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal from the Principal Magistrate's Court (statutory first appellate jurisdiction; memorandum of appeal dated 5th December 2022)
Relief refused
#Appeal against the permanent injunction and eviction order
The ground of adverse possession was not pleaded and the Appellant failed to rebut the Respondent's registered title
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondents
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.
The upshot of the foregoing is the issue of adverse possession, as a ground of appeal, is another afterthought which is demonstrative of a drowning party who is grasping onto any reed within his vicinity. That ground of appeal fails completely.
Having considered the pleadings, record of appeal, attendant submissions and legislation, it is my considered view that the appeal fails in its entirety. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Orders accordingly.
As general principle in law, a party is bound by its pleadings. As such, any evidence which goes outside of the pleadings on record must be disregarded.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes itself as being on appeal from the trial court but earlier refers to 'the trial court issued a permanent injunction' in terms suggesting the appellate court is restating; this is consistent and not contradictory - however, the judgment inconsistently refers to the Land Act section 26 whereas section 26 belongs to the Land Registration Act
The lower court decision date is not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ligati v Kedemi (Environment and Land Appeal E029 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6460 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal (Environment and Land Court, Migori) from Principal Magistrate's Court - Memorandum of Appeal dated 5th December 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6460/eng@2025-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.