Jemeli v Karoney & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3173 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A woman who farmed one acre of land for nearly 30 years won ownership through adverse possession, though her claim for damages failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the plaintiff has established ownership of one acre of land parcel Nandi/Kombe/894 by adverse possession and/or constructive trust arising from the 1996 sale agreement and the 2010 Land Control Board consent
- 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from interfering with her possession of the one acre
- 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages for trespass and loss of tea income
Key legal issues
#Adverse possession of a defined portion of registered land
The plaintiff proved adverse possession of a well-defined one-acre portion, having taken possession in 1996, planted tea in 1997 and remained in continuous peaceful possession until November 2024, well beyond the limitation period
The court relied on Gatimu Kinguru v Muya Gathangi for the requirement that a claimant identify a definite portion of land, and Wilson Kazungu Katana for the requirement that the land be registered in another's name. Possession took the form of planting and harvesting tea, a mode of possession recognised in Titus Ong'anga Nyachieo. By dint of the Land Control Board exhibits, the plaintiff acquired the acre by adverse possession and/or constructive trust.
Permanent injunction and damages in an unchallenged claim
A permanent injunction issued in line with Nguruman Ltd v Jean Bonde Niel and section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, but no damages were awarded because special damages were not distinctly pleaded and proved
The court applied the Nguruman principles for a permanent injunction together with section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act on permanent preservation orders. Although the plaintiff's case was unchallenged, following Eric Adome and Kuria Kiarie, the court held that special damages must be distinctly pleaded and proved, and declined to award any damages.
Proof in an undefended suit proceeded by formal proof
The plaintiff's unchallenged evidence, tested on a balance of probabilities, proved the case against the defendants who failed to enter appearance or file defence
The defendants were duly served as shown by affidavits of service but opted not to enter appearance or file a defence; the court directed the suit to proceed as undefended by formal proof, citing Ogada v Mollin. The plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged per Linus Nganga Kiongo v Town Council of Kikuyu, and the court applied the balance-of-probabilities standard from Kirugi v Kabiya to find the case proved.
Legal principles established
#- A definite portion of land is an important and integral part of proving an adverse possession claim
- For adverse possession, the parcel of land must be registered in the name of a person other than the applicant
- Registration of land can be challenged by way of overriding interests including adverse possession and trusts under section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act
- Special damages must be distinctly pleaded and proved before an award can be made
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be registered as proprietor of one (1) acre excised from land parcel Nandi/Kombe/894 by virtue of the 1996 sale agreement and 2010 Land Control Board approval, or alternatively by adverse possession
- 2.An order directing the 3rd defendant to survey, subdivide the suit land and register the plaintiff's one acre in her name
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, their agents, servants or assigns, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, use and enjoyment of the one acre, including harvesting of tea bushes
- 4.Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 - section 13 (7) invoked on permanent preservation orders; suit commenced by plaint under the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)
Relief refused
#General and special damages for trespass and loss of tea income
Special damages were not distinctly pleaded and proved
Costs
Costs follow the event; the defendants to bear the costs of the suit, per section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Jasbir Singh Rai & others vs Tarlochan Rai & others (2014) eKLR
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
By dint of PExhibits 1 , 2 and 3, the plaintiff has acquired the one acre of the suit land by adverse possession and or constructive trust.
that a definite portion of land is an important and integral part of process of proving adverse possession claim
However, special damages not distinctly pleaded and proved and coupled with the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to any damages herein.
Thus, judgment is hereby entered for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally orders (a) (b) (c) as stated in paragraph 1 (a) (i) or/alternatively (ii). (b) and (c) hereinabove
the defendants to bear the costs of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not print the names of the defendants in the text provided; the coram listing of parties is absent, so the defendants are identified only by role numbers
The disposition paragraph is garbled, repeating '(b) and (c)' and mixing the relief headings so the exact orders entered are ambiguous
Internal inconsistency on the year of the Land Registration Act cited as '2016 (2012)'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jemeli v Karoney & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3173 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). KAPSABET ELCLC NO. E013 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3173/eng@2026-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.