Ndoro & 3 others v Mwereni Group Ranch (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2527 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Four families won ownership of 24.5 acres in Kwale after occupying it openly for over 47 years, gaining title deeds through adverse possession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved title by adverse possession over the 9.88 hectares
Yes - the court found open, continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted occupation exceeding 47 years, well beyond the statutory 12 years, extinguishing the defendant's title over the portion
The court applied Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act. Evidence of graves, cultivation, homesteads, a surveyor's report establishing 9.88 hectares, and corroboration by a neighbour and the Sub-Chief established possession that was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. The defendant, though served, filed no defence, leaving the plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted but still tested against the balance of probabilities.
Effect of the defendant's failure to file a defence or adduce evidence
The plaintiffs' evidence stood unchallenged but the plaintiff still had to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities
Relying on Charter House Bank Ltd v Frank N. Kamau, the court held that uncontroverted evidence must still be credible and believable. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the burden on the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiffs adduced credible, corroborated evidence, so the scales tilted in their favour despite the defendant's silence and indolence.
Who should bear the costs of the suit
The defendant, having been served and having failed to contest, should bear the plaintiffs' costs with interest
Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Morgan Air Cargo Ltd v Everest Enterprises Ltd, costs follow the event. The court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule; the defendant's indolence meant it would be unjust to burden the plaintiffs with costs of a suit they were compelled to bring.
Legal principles established
#- Even where a defendant fails to answer the claim, the plaintiff does not escape the burden and standard of proof
- At the expiration of the limitation period, the title of the registered proprietor is extinguished
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiffs as per the Plaint converted from the Originating Summons dated 4th October, 2023, in its entirety
- 2.A declaration issued that the Plaintiffs have acquired ownership by way of adverse possession of the portion of land measuring 9.88 hectares (24.5 acres) hived from L.R No. Kwale/Mwereni/14
- 3.The Land Registrar, Kwale, directed to excise the said portion from the larger parcel, register the Plaintiffs as proprietors thereof and issue them individual title deeds
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents or anyone acting under its instructions from interfering with the Plaintiffs' quiet possession, occupation and use of the said portion
- 5.Costs of the suit borne by the Defendant, payable to the Plaintiffs, with interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 17, 18, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 and Order 36 Rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndoro & 3 others v Mwereni Group Ranch (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2527 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 4th October, 2023 (ELC, Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2527/eng@2026-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.