Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025)· [2026] KEELC 1594 (KLR)

Vakasi & another v Nasimiyu (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1594 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 March 2026
ANA. NYUKURI
1,249 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed landowners' bid to stop their eviction because they missed two key requirements for an adverse possession claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 seeking prohibitory and temporary injunctions and status quo orders restraining the respondent from evicting them, enforcing eviction notices dated 19th May 2025 and 10th June 2025, or dealing with parcel Isukha/Kambiri/1464 pending hearing of the suit. They claimed occupation for over 20 years, purchase from the respondent's father in 2002 (with Land Control Board consent) and from Ruth and Isaac Shamala in 2005, and alleged the property was fraudulently transferred to the respondent in 2025, who they said held it in trust for them. The respondent opposed, stating she had held title since 2014 (title deed issued 17th September 2014), that the applicants were not in occupation, and that no purchase evidence or survey existed. In written submissions, the sole issue was whether the applicants met the conditions for temporary injunction and status quo orders. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court held that no prima facie case was shown: an adverse possession claim requires 12 years of adverse occupation, and less than 12 years had elapsed from the respondent's 2014 registration to filing of the suit. Further, the applicants failed to attach the extract of title/green card mandated by Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2), rendering the suit incompetent and preventing ascertainment of the title history. The application was dismissed with costs on 18th March 2026.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case for temporary injunction founded on adverse possession

Holding

No prima facie case; the applicants had not been in adverse possession for 12 years from the respondent's 2014 registration and failed to comply with Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2) by attaching an extract of title

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. The respondent's title deed showed the parcel was opened in 2001 but registered in her name in 2014, so less than 12 years had elapsed when the suit was filed. Additionally, the applicants failed to attach the extract of title/green card mandatory under Order 37 Rule 7, making the suit incompetent and preventing the court from ascertaining the title history.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for adverse possession must be supported by an affidavit with an extract of title of the disputed land attached, failing which the court cannot ascertain the history of the title
  • A claim for adverse possession requires 12 years of adverse occupation, computed from registration of the current proprietor

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Vakasi & another v Nasimiyu (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1594/eng@2026-03-18

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.