Ajowi (Suing as Legal Representative of Pitalis Ajowi Owuor) v Fredrick Omondi Omollo (Suing as Legal Representative of Paul Ariwa - Deceased) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6874 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed a son's adverse possession land claim because he provided no real proof of occupation and disputed the owners' 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 Applicant has been in open, public, continuous and notorious possession and occupation of land parcel numbers Kisumu/Karateng’/2624 and Kisumu/Karateng’/2625 for a period exceeding 12 years
- 2.Whether the Respondents’ title to the said parcels became extinguished upon expiry of 12 years from the time the Applicant’s deceased father went into occupation
- 3.Whether the Applicant is entitled to be registered as proprietor of the suit parcels by virtue of adverse possession
- 4.Whether the registration of the Respondents as absolute owners stands revoked
- 5.Who should bear the costs of the Originating Summons
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff and his father were in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the suit land for over 12 years
Not proved - no evidence of actual possession was exhibited
The court found the plaintiff's testimony contradicted: he said the 1st Defendant demolished the houses on the land in 2019, while PW2 said the houses of the plaintiff and his father still stood on the land. No photographs or other evidence of occupation were produced. The claim by a party suing as administrator of his father's estate, alleging the owner obtained title by fraud, failed on a balance of probabilities.
Whether a plaintiff alleging fraudulent registration can rely on adverse possession
No - adverse possession requires acknowledgement of the registered owner's title
The plaintiff claimed the Respondents obtained registration by false representation and trickery. The court held that the doctrine of adverse possession requires the claimant to recognise ownership of the land by the defendant, citing Langat v Byomdo, Yaa v Nyaje and Lukholola v Aluvale. A claimant who disputes the defendant's title cannot simultaneously hinge a claim on that title.
Whether the Defendant's 2019 entry and fencing terminated any accrued adverse possession rights
Yes - the owner's effective entry and taking possession stopped time from running
On the plaintiff's own evidence, the Defendant entered the land as registered owner, fenced it, took possession and denied the plaintiff access in 2019. Relying on Kiritu v Kabura, Maungu v Were, Kim Pavey and Githu v Ndeete, the court held that such assertion of right by effective entry stops time running under the Limitation of Actions Act, terminating any rights the plaintiff may have acquired.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant of adverse possession must first acknowledge the ownership of the suit land by the titleholder against whom the claim is made
- Time ceased to run in favour of an adverse possessor when the registered owner asserts his right by effective entry or legal proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The Originating Summons is dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (adverse possession claim by Originating Summons)
Relief refused
#Declaration of adverse possession and registration of the Plaintiff as proprietor of Kisumu/Karateng’/2624 and 2625
Plaintiff failed to prove actual possession for 12 years and did not acknowledge the Respondents' title; any possession was terminated by the owner's entry in 2019
Revocation of the Respondents' registration as absolute owners
No basis for allowing the prayers having found no adverse possession established
Costs
Costs are awarded 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 court finds that the Plaintifi has not proved his claim on a balance of probabilities. The suit is hereby dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the Respondents.
I find that the Plaintifi is not entitled to the suit land by virtue of the doctrine of adverse possession.
The meaning or efiect of this action by the Defendant is that any rights acquired by the plaintifi under the doctrine of adverse possession were terminated.
the occupation has been open, actual, continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, exclusive and with the knowledge but without the consent or permission of the registered owner for the prescribed period of 12 years.
the Plaintifis have to prove that they have used this land which they claim as of right: nec vi, nec clam, nec precario (no force, no secrecy, no persuasion).
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory evidence on the existence of houses on the suit land noted by the court itself
Typographical error in the judgment stating the year of the Defendant's entry as 2029 instead of 2019
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ajowi (Suing as Legal Representative of Pitalis Ajowi Owuor) v Fredrick Omondi Omollo (Suing as Legal Representative of Paul Ariwa - Deceased) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 25th July, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6874/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.