Kossio & another v Tum (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1806 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court gave two sisters ownership of land they openly occupied since 1964, ruling that long, uninterrupted possession without permission defeats a registered owner's title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved adverse possession over Nandi/Sigot/38
All elements of adverse possession were established on a balance of probabilities; the proprietor's interest was extinguished and the land vested in the plaintiffs.
The register (PExhibits 3a and 3c) showed the land registered in a person other than the plaintiffs. The grounds on the originating summons and paragraphs 7 to 10 of the supporting affidavit, plus PW1's testimony of occupation since 1964 without interruption, established open, continuous, notorious and adverse possession exceeding twelve years. The claim was over a definite portion of 2.02 Ha. Formal proof does not lessen the burden, but the plaintiffs' evidence was held cogent.
Whether the claim was over a definite and identifiable portion of land
Yes; the claim concerned a definite portion of approximately 2.02 hectares as evidenced by the official search and register.
The court noted the suit land measures approximately Two Decimal Zero Two Hectares as revealed in PExhibits 3a and 3c, aligning with authority that an adverse possession claim must be over a definite portion of land. This satisfied the identification requirement before orders for extinguishment and registration could issue.
Legal principles established
#- Adverse possession requires: land registered in another's name; open and exclusive possession adverse to the owner's title; and occupation in excess of twelve years with dispossession or discontinuance of possession by the owner.
- Possession must be without the permission of the owner.
- The burden of proof remains on the party bringing the suit even where the case proceeds by formal proof.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the proprietor's interest in land parcel Nandi/Sigot/38 is extinguished
- 2.Removal/deletion of the proprietor's name (and successors/administrators) from the register
- 3.Registration of the plaintiffs as proprietors of the whole of the suit land by adverse possession
- 4.Vesting of the suit land on the plaintiffs
- 5.Defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the case
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 17, 30 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and Order 37 Rules 7, 8 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kossio & another v Tum (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1806 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 22nd January 2022 (E&L Court, Kapsabet). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1806/eng@2026-03-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.