Muiruri & 23 others v National Land Commission & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1001 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to throw out a landowners' adverse possession claim, ruling their 25-year occupation allegations must be tested at a full trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
The application fails; the Originating Summons discloses a reasonable cause of action and raises triable issues
The court applied Order 2 Rule 15 and the settled test that striking out is discretionary and drastic, citing DT Dobie, Blue Shield and Kenyariri. The Plaintiffs pleaded continuous occupation from 2000, exceeding the 12-year statutory period under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Since proof of the ingredients of adverse possession requires evidence to be tested at trial, the court could not hold the suit frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process on the pleadings alone. Unopposed applications are still determined on merits.
Ingredients of a claim in adverse possession
Adverse possession requires actual, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession adverse to the registered proprietor for at least 12 years
Citing Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwangandi, the court restated that adverse possession arises where a person takes possession asserting rights and the title owner omits to act for 12 years; possession must be neither by force, stealth nor licence and must be adequate in continuity, publicity and extent. The Plaintiffs allege occupation from 2000, which on the face of the pleadings meets the statutory threshold, so the claim must go to trial.
Legal principles established
#- Striking out pleadings is a drastic, discretionary remedy that should be used sparingly and only where a pleading is clearly untenable
- A suit disclosing triable issues of fact cannot be summarily determined on an application
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated 27/3/2025 is dismissed entirely with no orders as to costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 26(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act; Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muiruri & 23 others v National Land Commission & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1001 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (in respect of the 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 27/3/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1001/eng@2026-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.