Kiburi v Lowi (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1361 (KLR)

e. Whether the defendant should meet the costs of this suit”. 2. Service of the suit documents were efiected by way of substituted service through advertisement in the Newspaper, but the defendant did not enter appearance, hence the matter proceeded as a formal proof. 3. The plaintifi was the sole witness to her case. She adopted her supporting afidavit to the OS as her evidence. She contends that her parents used to work foe Walter and Lena Lowi, the owners of the suit land. That Walter and Lena vacated the land in year 1992. That the plaintifi proceeded to develop the land, adding that her children were born on that land. She avers that her occupation of the said land has remained uninterrupted todate. 4. In support of her case, the plaintifi has produced as exhibits, the documents attached to her supporting afidavit including the title of the suit land. 5. In her submissions, the plaintifi has reiterated that she has met the criteria of an adverse possessor, having been born on the suit land. 6. On the face of the case, it may appear that indeed the plaintifi has met the threshold in an adverse possession claim. The court has however found a missing link as between the plaintifi and the defendant. The plaintifi has sued Lena Lowi as the defendant. The title to the suit land indicates that Walter Lowi and Lena Lowi were registered as the owners of the suit land I.R NO 8012 (Land Reference No 7647) on 1.2.1948. Entry no 4 of the title captures the death of Walter Lowi on 23.11.1990. 7. Then at entry no. 6, an area covering 2.292 ha. being LR. NO. 7647 was transferred to Daniel Waithaka Mwangi and Keziah Wanjiru Waithaka as joint tenants on 22.6.1998. In essence, the Land in question is no longer registered in favour of the defendant. 8. In the case of Titus Kigoro Munyi v Peter Mburu Kimani [2015] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that; “ We are of the considered view that in a claim for adverse possession, actual or constructive knowledge of adverse possession by a third party on the part of the registered proprietor must be proved”. 9. In the case at hand, there is no evidence to indicate that the real registered owners of the suit land are aware of this claim. In the circumstances, I find that this suit is not merited, the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Vanessa C/Assistant M/s Mwema holding brief for Mutungi for Plaintifi https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1361/eng@2026-03-04 2

page 2 of 2