Meyo v Njoga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed a 21-year adverse possession land claim because the claimant couldn't prove exactly which land he occupied and when his claim started.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's entry and occupation was adverse to the Defendant
Entry was not with the Defendant's permission or license, so entry was adverse
The Defendant alleged he licensed Amol Onyuka to use the land, but gave inconsistent reasons (goodwill as cousin versus absence). The court found no evidence of any license. Since the Plaintiff did not enter with permission from the registered owner, his entry was adverse to the Defendant's interest.
Whether the Plaintiff proved exclusive, open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession for the prescribed period
No - the claim failed on the size of the portion claimed and the start of the limitation period
The pleadings claimed the entire 0.35Ha but oral evidence introduced a portion (lower part, about 0.2Ha) contrary to pleadings; no surveyor's report fixed the portion occupied. No sale agreement or proof of payment of purchase price was produced, so when time began to run was unresolved. Burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act was not discharged.
Costs
Costs follow the event; the Defendant gets costs
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. Having failed, the Plaintiff bears the Defendant's costs.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant in adverse possession must prove exclusive, open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession
- Parties are bound by their pleadings; evidence at variance with pleadings must be disregarded
- Where only a portion of land is claimed by adverse possession, the size of the portion must be pleaded and proved; a surveyor's report is the best evidence
- Time for adverse possession under a land sale agreement runs from the date of payment of the purchase price, which must be proved
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (Originating Summons under the Limitation of Actions Act, sections 7, 13 and 17)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meyo v Njoga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 17th May, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8058/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.