Margaret Atieno Miruka & another v Simon Omboga Ooko (Suing as administrator ad litem of the Estate of Alois Ooko Omboga, Deceased) & another

of physical presence have woven an unbreakable possessory bond, silentl y eroding and extinguishing the rights of any paper owner. 3. Conversely, ELC Case No. E007 of 2025 (Plaint) tells an equally compellin g story of modern commerce, trust, and the sanctity of contractual executi on. Elijah Okoth Ongaro stepped forward as a purchaser who performed his part of the bargain—scrupulously executing a sale agreement, meeting all financial obligations under the watchful eye of local leadership, and se eking the steadfast shield of the law as a bona fide purchaser for value wit hout notice. Caught between the ghosts of historical occupation and the fi nality of written contracts, the estate of the late registered proprietor, repr esented by Simon Omboga Ooko, steps in to validate the transition of the l and from its patriarch to its lawful purchaser. It is against this backdrop of colliding worlds—where unwritten tenure clashes with formal registratio n and statutory right—that this Court must draw the line where equity, la w, and justice finally meet. 2. Summary of the Pleadings and Submissions A. Submissions of the Claimants in ELC Case No. E014 of 2025 (Adverse Possess ion) 4. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant passionately urged the Court to recognize that time for adverse possession commenced ticking strictly from Septemb er 1, 2008—the date the suit land was formally brought under the umbrell a of formal registration statutes in the name of the late Alois Ooko Ombog 2|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 2 of 11

a—and marched unhindered through the statutory threshold of the Limita tion of Actions Act (Cap 22). 5. It was painted as a timeline of quiet inevitability: by the year 2020, the regis tered owner's power to recover the land had withered away by operation o f law, solidifying overriding possessory rights long before a single shilling changed hands for the disputed sale in June 2024. 6. The claimants argued that any subsequent buyer who relies solely on a pap er registry search without stepping onto the soil to unearth deep-seated po ssession does so at their own peril, running afoul of overriding interests pr otected under the Land Registration Act. 7. Margaret Atieno Miruka thus framed her stance around her family's long-s tanding footprint, pleading that her historical reality should triumph over l ate-hour ink and paper agreements. B. Submissions of the Purchaser / Plaintiff in ELC No. E007 of 2025 (Elijah Okot h Ongaro) 8. Armed with the Supreme Court’s timeless wisdom in Sehmi & another v. Tarabana Company Limited & 5 others [2025] KESC 21 (KLR) and the fou ndational doctrine in Katende v. Haridar & Company Limited [2008] EA 1 73, the purchaser demonstrated a meticulous adherence to due diligence a nd valuable consideration. 9. Citing In re Estate of M'chokera M'ramare (Deceased) [2019], counsel emph asized that the shadow of death does not wipe away legitimate contractual vows, nor can probate technicalities be weaponized to cheat a diligent buye r who paid in full. 3|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 3 of 11

10.The purchaser unmasked the weakness of the opposing side: any alleged o ral agreement stretching back to 1983 was crippled by Section 3(3) of the La w of Contract Act, while the alternative narrative of adverse possession coll apsed because the initial entry was cooperative and permissive, not hostile (Seventh Day Adventist Church EA Ltd v. Isoge F.C.S. Ltd [2021]). 11.Invoking Sections 24(a) and 25(1) of the Land Registration Act, the purchas er maintained that absolute title guarantees the right to exclusive, peaceful enjoyment free from unmerited trespassers (Fredrick Korir v. Soin United Women Group [2018]). C. Submissions of the 1st Defendant / Registered Owner’s Estate (Simon Ombo ga Ooko) 12.The estate anchored its defense in the absolute title issued to the patriarch Alois Ooko Omboga on September 1, 2008, affirming that the family value d and maintained ties to the land. 13.Highlighting the dramatic turning points of the past, the estate reminded t he Court that historical land adjudication disputes raised by the claimants had been formally dismissed on May 28, 1992—a decisive legal earthquake that fractured any claims of continuous, unchallenged possession. 14.The 1st Defendant boldly confessed the truth of the transaction: his late fat her had indeed sold the land to Elijah Okoth Ongaro, culminating in a final payment witnessed by the Area Assistant Chief on June 4, 2024, thereby in viting the Court to grant specific performance and honor the transfer. 3. Prayers Sought by the Parties 4|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 4 of 11

A. Prayers in ELC Case No. E014 of 2025 (Originating Summons) 15.Declaration of Adverse Possession: A judicial declaration that the Plaintiff s (Margaret Atieno Miruka and Peter Ogolla Miruka) have acquired absol ute ownership and title to Land Parcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/1029 by way of adverse possession, having lived out the mandatory statutory p eriod under the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22). 16.Extinguishment of Rights: An order declaring that the registered proprieto r's right to recover the land stands completely wiped out by operation of la w. 17.Cancellation and Registration: An order directing the Land Registrar to stri ke out existing entries and register the land in the names of the Originating Summons Plaintiffs. 18.Injunctive Relief: A permanent injunction blocking the defendants or their agents from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful occupation. 19.Costs: An order that the respondents bear the financial burden of the suit. B. Prayers in ELC Case No. E007 of 2025 (Plaint) 20.Declaration of Bona Fide Purchaser Status: A declaration that Elijah Okoth Ongaro is a protected bona fide purchaser for value without notice regard ing Land Parcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/1029, holding a valid equita ble interest under the sale agreement of April 12, 2024. 21.Specific Performance: An order compelling the 1st Defendant (Simon Omb oga Ooko, as administrator ad litem) to finalize succession, capture the pur chaser's interest in the confirmation of grant, and execute Form LRA 33 tra nsfer instruments. 5|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 5 of 11

22.Permanent Injunction: A permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from entering, ploughing, or interfering with the suit property. 23.Eviction and Vacant Possession: An order requiring the 2nd and 3rd Defen dants to pack up and deliver vacant possession within thirty (30) days, faili ng which an eviction order shall issue. 24.Removal of Caution: An order directing the Land Registrar to uncondition ally vacate the caution lodged by Peter Ogolla Miruka on May 6, 2024. 25.Costs and Interest: An order that costs and interest be paid jointly and seve rally by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. 4. Framed Issues for Determination 26.The canvas of evidence and law distills this dispute down to five decisive questions: i. Whether Margaret Atieno Miruka has proved all ingredients of adv erse possession—specifically whether her stay was truly open, excl usive, and uninterrupted (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario) for twelve years, or whether it was permissive and severed by the adjudicatio n ruling of May 28, 1992. ii. Whether the registered owner's right to recover the land was exting uished under the Limitation of Actions Act before the 2024 transacti ons. iii. Whether Elijah Okoth Ongaro qualifies as a protected bona fide pur chaser for value without notice. 6|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 6 of 11

iv. Whether the vendor's death extinguished the contract, and whether the administrator ad litem properly bridged the procedural gap to f ulfill specific performance. v. Who among the litigants is ultimately entitled to the prayers and rel iefs sought. 5. Detailed Legal Analysis, Case Law, and Determinations A. Issue 1 & 2: Why the Plaintiffs’ Occupation Was Permissive, Not Adverse 27.To claim land by adverse possession, the law demands rigorous, unyieldi ng proof that the occupation was hostile, continuous, and free of permissi on (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario ) for a full twelve years, as commanded b y Section 7 and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22). a) The Trap of Permissive Roots: As immortalized in the Court of Appeal decision in Sisto Wambugu v. Kamaru Njuguna [1983] KLR 172, where a person’s entry into land is born out of familial accommodation, infor mal understanding, or mutual permission, the clock of adverse possessi on simply does not start ticking until that permission is unmistakably a nd aggressively repudiated. The plaintiffs' historical presence was root ed in a narrative of soft familial arrangements, not a hostile banner of o wnership. b) The Legal Lightning Rod of 1992: Even if time had sought to march for ward, the continuity was shattered by reality. The historical land adjud ication dispute—fought and formally resolved against the family on M 7|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 7 of 11

ay 28, 1992—acted as a severe legal interruption. It broke the chain of u ninterrupted possession, resetting any legal imagination of time. c) Conclusion on Possession: Because the occupation was permissive in or igin and legally interrupted, the statutory threshold was never met. No extinguishment occurred under Section 17, leaving the registered owne r's title pristine, unburdened, and fully capable of lawful alienation. B. Issue 3: The Shield of the Bona Fide Purchaser 28.Under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Land Registration Act (No. 3 of 2012), a registered title stands as a fortress of absolute ownership. Reaffirming th e historic East African doctrine in Katende v. Haridar & Company Limited [2008] EA 173 and the modern Supreme Court benchmark in Sehmi & ano ther v. Tarabana Company Limited & 5 others [2025] KESC 21 (KLR), the l aw fiercely protects an innocent purchaser who pays value without notice of hidden claims. Elijah Okoth Ongaro walked the straight path: he search ed the registry, signed a clean agreement on April 12, 2024, and cleared hi s dues before the vendor passed away. His equitable and legal rights towe r far above unmerited possessory assertions. C. Issue 4: The Bridge of Estate Representation (Ad Litem Capacity) 29.Death is a natural end, but it does not destroy legally forged obligations ( I n re Estate of M'chokera M'ramare (Deceased) [2019]). Under East African probate and civil procedure principles, an administrator ad litem steps int o the breach to ensure that justice is not buried with the dead. The 1st Def endant, Simon Omboga Ooko, lawfully held the capacity to complete the t 8|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 8 of 11

ransaction. This harmonizes with regional jurisprudence, from Kenya's Or der 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules to Uganda's strict procedural doctrines (Lwanyikirira v. Administrator General, Misc. Appl. No. 2298 of 2024; An echo Haruna Musa v. Twalib Noah & Others, Civil Suit No. 009 of 2008). T o execute this decree, the administrator ad litem must list the purchaser's i nterest in the estate inventory, secure a Certificate of Confirmation of Gra nt under Section 71 of the Law of Succession Act, clear all statutory obligat ions, and execute Form LRA 33 for ultimate registration. 6. Disposition and Orders 30.Upon a thorough weighing of the scales of justice, evidence, and comparat ive jurisprudence: i) IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that the Originating Summons Plaintiffs, Marg aret Atieno Miruka and Peter Ogolla Miruka, have failed to prove adverse possession over Land Parcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/1029; their occu pation was permissive and legally interrupted by historical adjudication o utcomes. The Originating Summons in ELC Case No. E014 of 2025 is accor dingly dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant and the Purchaser. ii) IT IS HEREBY DECLARED in ELC Case No. E007 of 2025 that Elijah Okoth Ongaro is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice regarding Land P arcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/1029, holding a valid equitable interest under the agreement dated April 12, 2024. iii)AN ORDER OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE is hereby issued directing the 1st Defendant (Simon Omboga Ooko, as administrator ad litem of the estat e of Alois Ooko Omboga, Deceased) to finalize succession proceedings und 9|Page ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 9 of 11

er the Law of Succession Act (Cap 160), incorporate the purchaser into the c onfirmation of grant, and execute all necessary Form LRA 33 transfer instru ments to convey the land directly to Elijah Okoth Ongaro. iv)AN ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION is hereby issued restraining t he 2nd and 3rd Defendants (Margaret Atieno Miruka and Peter Ogolla Mir uka), by themselves or their agents, from entering, cultivating, or interferin g with Land Parcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/1029. v) VACANT POSSESSION shall be delivered by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants t o the Purchaser within thirty (30) days of this judgment, failing which form al eviction orders shall issue without further reference. vi)THE CAUTION lodged against Land Parcel Number Kasgunga/Kamreri/ 1029 by Peter Ogolla Miruka on May 6, 2024, is ordered to be immediately removed and cancelled. vii) COSTS of these consolidated suits shall be borne by the 2nd and 3rd Defe ndants jointly and severally, payable to the Purchaser and the 1st Defendan t. DATED, SIGNED, and DELIVERED at HOMA BAY this 25th Day of September, 2026. JUSTICE J.W. WANYONYI- JUDGE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT -ELC In the presence of; 10 | P a g e ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 10 of 11

1. Dan Ochieng for the Respondent- Present 2. Ndani for Adoyo for the Plaintiff: Present 3. Ondicho for the Plaintiff -Present 4. Simon Omboga Ooko -Present 5. Mercy Awino, Court Assistant. 11 | P a g e ELC CONSOLIDATED SUITS NOS. E014 & E007 OF 2025- JUDGEMENT

page 11 of 11