Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC NO. E009 OF 2024 (O.S)· [2026] KEELC 5622 (KLR)

Nyoro Construction Company Limited v Sugden Limited

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2026
2,009 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court declared a buyer who paid in full and occupied land for 27 years its owner through adverse possession, even without a transfer.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Nyoro Construction Company Limited filed an originating summons under sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act against Sugden Limited, seeking a declaration that it had acquired parcel L.R. No. 14242/26 by adverse possession, an alternative declaration that the Defendant held it in trust, an order for transfer, and costs. The Defendant, served by substituted service, did not enter appearance or respond. The court directed the matter proceed by affidavit evidence, supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff's director, Josiah Njoroge Njuguna. The evidence showed the Plaintiff purchased portions of the suit parcel in 1996 from Wilson Kipkeror Kibet and the Defendant under two sale agreements dated 8th and 22nd November 1996; the Defendant's advocate confirmed receipt of the full purchase price by letter dated 17th March 1997, but transfer was never executed. The Plaintiff remained in quiet, continuous and uninterrupted occupation. Framing two issues - whether the occupation constituted adverse possession and who should bear costs - the court applied sections 7, 13, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the tests in Kasuve v Mwaani Investments, Songoi v Songoi, Lewa v Mwagandi and Public Trustee v Wanduru, holding that the limitation period ran from full payment of the purchase price on 17th March 1997, some twenty-seven years before suit. Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with a declaration that it is entitled to be registered forthwith as owner of the parcel by dint of adverse possession. Although the judgment states the prayers as sought were allowed, only the declaration was granted, and the court ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff's occupation constituted adverse possession

Holding

Yes - the Plaintiff, having purchased the suit property, paid the full purchase price and remained in quiet, continuous and uninterrupted possession for over 27 years, acquired title by adverse possession.

Reasoning

The court applied sections 7, 13, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the Kasuve and Songoi tests: exclusive, open, uninterrupted possession for 12 years known to the owner. The purchase price was confirmed paid by the Defendant's advocate's letter of 17th March 1997; under Public Trustee v Wanduru the limitation period runs from full payment. Twenty-seven years having lapsed without transfer or interruption, the claim was proved on a balance of probabilities.

p. 11
02

Costs of the suit

Holding

Each party to bear own costs, notwithstanding the Plaintiff's request under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Reasoning

Counsel for the Plaintiff relied on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and urged the court to award costs to the Plaintiff. The court, in its final orders, declined to follow the ordinary costs-follow-the-event rule and directed that each party bear its own costs, without giving reasons.

p. 12

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a purchaser pays the full purchase price and the vendor fails to transfer, the limitation period for adverse possession runs from the date of payment of the purchase price in full.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff as against the Defendant.
  2. 2.A declaration issued that the Plaintiff is entitled to be registered forthwith as owner of parcel L.R. No. 14242/26 by dint of adverse possession.
  3. 3.Each party shall bear own costs.
Jurisdiction invoked
Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, Sections 37 & 38 (originating summons for adverse possession)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyoro Construction Company Limited v Sugden Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. E009 OF 2024 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5622/eng@2026-09-24

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