Luke Agan v Jared Omondi Omiti (Sued as Legal Representative and Successor of the Late Omiti Misnjiro)

2. THAT the District Registrar Rachuonyo be ordered to register the Applicant herein as the Sole Proprietor of the Land Reference No. Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407 in the place of JARED OMONDI OMITI, the Respondent. 3. The Respondent by himself, his servants, his employees, his agents or otherwise whomsoever acting pursuant to his instructions individually or collectively or otherwise be permanently restrained from trespassing, alienating, entering, occupying, dealing and/or interfering in any way with the Applicant’s quiet possession, use, occupation, development and proprietorship of the suit premises or any part thereof. 4. The costs of this Application be provided for. 2. The Summons is based on the grounds on the face of it and supported by the averments in the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff. He deponed that the suit parcel Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407 is registered in the name of Jared Omondi Omiti, the Respondent. 3. He deponed further that sometime in 1995, he had purchased from the Respondent’s father Omiti Misinjiro (deceased) who died before transferring it to him. Further, that he occupied the land immediately after the sale and the deceased never interfered with his occupation. He deponed that he had approached the Respondent and requested him to undertake succession so as to enable him transfer the suit property but he refused. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 2

page 2 of 23

4. He also deponed that he has been in physical, actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit parcel since 1995. He added that he had planted trees and crops for his family consumption. 5. He deponed that the title to the suit property in the deceased’s name was extinguished in 2007 vide his continuous and exclusive adverse possession. In conclusion, he averred that he was entitled to be the registered owner of the suit parcel. 6. The Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th March, 2019 in response to the Summons. He stated that being the first born of Omiti Misinjiro, he never participated in the purported sale nor informed of the said transactions. He further stated that the Applicant took advantage of his tender age and trespassed onto his late father’s land after his death and later bring the present claim. 7. He stated that the Applicant’s continuous trespass on the suit parcel has been the subject of their constant dispute at the Lands Dispute Tribunal. 8. He went on to state that upon the demise of his father, he applied for a Grant of Letter of Administration and the same was granted. He added that the Applicant never raised any objection at the time the Estate was being distributed. 9. The Respondent stated that the Applicant was aware of the dispute in the suit parcel and therefore his assertion of a peaceful and uninterrupted occupation was misleading. He also stated that the suit parcel was not in existence since the same had been subdivided. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 3

page 3 of 23

PLAINTIFF’S CASE 10. Luke Agan testified as PW1. He adopted his affidavit sworn on 29th January, 2019 as his evidence in chief. He also produced the annexures thereto which were marked as PExh 1, 2 and 3. These were, PExh 1, a copy of Certificate of official search for parcel number Central Kasipul/Kamuma/3227 registered in the name of Jared Omiti; PExh 2, a copy of the Agreement of Sale of land dated 20th August 1995; and copies of the proceedings of the Land Disputes Tribunal, dated 10 th November 2005. It was his testimony that he has been in occupation of the suit land since 1985 where he has been cultivating it. 11. PW1 also relied on his statement dated 27 th September, 2021 which was adopted as his evidence in chief. He further relied on his supporting documents dated 23 rd May, 2022 which documents were produced as PExh 4, 5, 6 and 7. These were, a Summons by the Chief, dated 29/03/2005; Notice to attend the Objection, it was dated 32/20/2005; a Letter by the Land Registrar, dated 22/08/2007; and a Certified copy of the green card for parcel No. 1407. 12. He testified that he purchased the suit land from Omiti (deceased) at Ksh. 60,000 and that the same had not been transferred to him as the Respondent failed to take him to the area Land Control Board (LCB). It was his statement that at the time of purchase, the suit land belonged to Omiti Misinjiro and Ogutu Ondago and that Omiti sold him his portion. 13. He also stated that the Respondent, Jared Omondi claimed that he could only sell him the land again at the current HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 4

page 4 of 23

market price. He added that the Land Dispute Tribunal ordered that the land be subdivided into 2 equal parts between the Applicant and the Respondent. He further stated that the Respondent secretly filed for succession without involving him in the process. PW1 urged the court to grant him the orders sought in the summons. 14. Upon cross examination by Okenye for the Respondent, he stated that he was aware of the acreage he claimed for the suit land being 4.25 acres. He further stated that Ogutu Ondago and the Respondent were to each get ½ a share of the suit parcel. He admitted that he was an interested party in the succession proceedings. He stated that the Respondent did the succession process without his knowledge. 15. He referred to PExh 6 of which he confirmed that the outcome of the succession process was in his favour. He stated that he stayed on the land since 2005 and that he had also cultivated. PW1 admitted that he had not constructed anything on the suit parcel. 16. On re-examination, he stated that he stated that there was a boundary issue on the suit parcel where the Respondent claimed that he had extended cultivation. He also stated that there had not been any interruption while he was cultivating the suit land. PW1 admitted that the Respondent and Oguto Ondago were the registered proprietors of the suit parcel and that he only claimed 1 ½ acres. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 5

page 5 of 23

17. He admitted that there had been an error in PExh 2 since he only claimed 1½ acres and not hectares. That marked the close of the Plaintiff’s case. DEFENCE CASE 18. Jared Omondi Owiti testified as DW1. He adopted his replying affidavit sworn on 4th May, 2019 and his statement dated 6th August, 2021 as his evidence in chief. 19. He testified that his father Samuel Omiti Misnjiro (deceased) sold to the Applicant the suit parcel. He added that the suit land was jointly in the name of Ogutu Ondago and Omiti (deceased). It was his statement that he was the legal representative of his late father’s estate. 20. It was his testimony that he found the Plaintiff on the suit land and that it had been fenced. He stated that he was young at the time. He testified that the suit land measured approximately 100ft by 120ft. 21. DW1 testified that the Applicant uprooted the live fence and extended the boundary to their portion of land. He added that in 2005, the Applicant had encroached onto their land at approximately 4 metres and beyond. 22. He testified that the Applicant bought the suit land for Kshs. 60,000 paid Kshs. 40,000 and left a balance of Kshs. 20,000 which remained unpaid to date. He also produced the documents in his list of documents dated 6 th August, 2021 which were marked as DExhibits 1 to 4. These were, the copy of the title deed for parcel No. 3227; a Rough Sketch Map Showing Plot sold and land expanded outside of the portion; HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 6

page 6 of 23

the Certificate of official Search; and a copy of the green card for the land, respectively. 23. Upon cross examination by counsel for the Applicant, he admitted that the deceased, his father had sold the suit land to the Applicant. He also admitted that he had passed on in 1997 and that the deceased had no case over the suit land with the Applicant. He added that problems arose when the Applicant extended the boundaries of the suit land in 2005. 24. DW1 admitted that he never mentioned the issue of boundary in his statement nor replying affidavit. He added that he never reported the incident to the police nor filed any boundary case. He stated that the Applicant occupied part of the suit parcel measuring 120 ft by 120 ft. He added that there was no surveyor and that the size had not been confirmed. 25. DW1 further stated that he had no issue if the Applicant retained the original boundary. He admitted that he was not present when the Applicant and the deceased entered into the sale agreement. He stated that the key issue was that the Applicant had extended the suit land into to his land. 26. Harrison Obade Ondago testified as DW2 where he produced his statement dated 6th August, 2021 and the same was adopted as his evidence in chief. 27. He testified that the Applicant had purchased the suit parcel from his late brother Omiti Misnjiro. He testified that he was present and that the sale was in writing. DW2 testified that the land measured 100ft by 120ft and that they had fenced in with a live fence. He went on to testify that the Applicant had not built on the suit parcel since 1985. It was his testimony that HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 7

page 7 of 23

the Applicant had paid Kshs. 40,000 to the deceased leaving a balance of Kshs. 20,000. 28. On cross examination by Achillo, DW2 admitted that he had not seen the balance of Kshs. 20,000 paid to the deceased. He also admitted that the Applicant was in occupation of the suit land and that he had done some extensions to the deceased land. 29. Upon re-examination, he stated that he was not sure if the Applicant had extended the land. That marked the close of the Respondent’s case. Further Evidence 30. On 18th March, 2024 and spirit of Article 159 of the Constitution and Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, the court directed the Land Registrar and Surveyor to proceed and determine the boundaries and ground position of the suit parcel and thereafter file a report. 31. The surveyor availed the report but the Respondent objected to its production in evidence, which led to the court having to summon the Surveyor to give his evidence viva voce on 21st January, 2026. This resulted in reopening of the Applicant’s case so as to take the surveyor’s evidence. 32. Caleb Otieno Onyango the Land Surveyor testified as PW2. It was his testimony that he was directed by the court to conduct a survey on the suit parcel on 11 th March, 2025. He further testified that on 12th May, 2025, he visited the suit parcel and had earlier summoned the parties vide a letter dated 28th April, 2025. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 8

page 8 of 23

33. He testified that both the Applicant and Respondent were present on that day. He went on to testify that he conducted the survey by establishing the positions occupied by both parties and the boundaries between them. 34. PW2 testified that the land had been subdivided into two being Kasipul/Kamuma/3226 and 3227. He added that the portion in dispute was parcel 3227. 35. He went on to testify that he took measurements which was 0.90Ha and drew a diagram for the same. He testified that the shaded region showed the portion sold to the Applicant. He added that the portion measured 0.13Ha and that it had no boundary or demarcated. 36. PW2 testified that the portion claimed by the Applicant measured 0.60 Ha. He went on to testify that the ground had a clear natural fence that separated parcel 3227 into two. 37. He also testified that the portion utilized by the Applicant had a clear natural fence and was covered with maize and cassava plantations. He testified that the other portion occupied by the Respondent was 0.3Ha and was covered by maize plantations. 38. PW2 testified that he had prepared a sketch that showed the boundaries on the ground. He further testified that the line/boundary between the Applicant and Respondent was shown by a star line while the demarcation showed occupation on the ground. He produced his report dated 14 th May, 2025 as PExh 7 which report was adopted as his evidence in chief. 39. Upon cross examination by Okenye, PW2 stated that he did not have the court order. He added that he knew that the HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 9

page 9 of 23

order directed that as the surveyor he was the one to visit the site and not with the Land Registrar. 40. He further stated that as per the order, they were to visit parcel no. 1407. He added that the Land Registrar was not obligated to visit the site since he would only take the details from the surveyor’s office. 41. PW2 confirmed that parcel 1407 had been subdivided and that parcel 3226, it had also been subdivided to parcel 7156, 7366 and 7376. He also confirmed that the ground had clear outer boundaries that separated the parcels of the neighbors. He further confirmed that in the event there was a boundary zone, it would have necessitated the presence of the Land Registrar. 42. PW2 stated that both the Applicant and Respondent confirmed that the live fence separated their occupation. He added that he interviewed the Respondent and his father who also confirmed the same. 43. He stated that the Respondent confirmed that he was aware that the Applicant bought the shaded area. He added that he used the Global Positioning System (GPS) to identify the position. He confirmed that the star line showed the position of the parties on the ground. 44. He also confirmed that there was no house on either of the separated portions. He admitted that he never asked whether they lived peacefully. He also added that the shaded region was shown by the Respondent. 45. On re-examination, PW2 stated that the Respondent never disputed that the star line he drew defined utilization on the HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 10

page 10 of 23

ground. He added that before he visited the ground, he had obtained the documents in relation to parcel number 1407. He confirmed that at the time he visited the suit parcel, he was aware that 1407 had already been subdivided. 46. That marked the close of the Applicant’s case. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 47. Counsel for the Plaintiff filed his submissions dated 20 th December, 2023 where he submitted that the portion sold by the Respondent to the Applicant was 1 ½ Ha from the entire portion 1.7Ha at Kshs. 60,000 and that Kshs. 40,000 was paid. 48. He further submitted that the proceedings of the Land Dispute Tribunal dated 10th November, 2005 confirmed that the balance of Kshs. 20,000 was cleared. He added that the same was paid when the vendor was sick and needed medical attention. 49. It was his submission that the Respondent confirmed that his late father had sold the suit land to the Applicant except that the Applicant had interfered with the boundary dispute. He relied on Section 3(1) of the Environment and Land Act. 50. He submitted that the dispute on encroachment shifted the issue for determination from one of adverse possession to that of the actual size the Applicant ought to be in possession of. He added that the Respondent’s defence of boundary encroachment and non-payment of the balance of purchase price was an afterthought and not supported by any evidence. 51. Counsel went on to submit that the balance of Kshs. 20,000 was paid only that there were no documents due to the deceased’s condition. He relied on the case of Macharia HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 11

page 11 of 23

Mwangi Maina & 87 Others v Davidson Mwangi Kagiri (2014) eKLR and Odd Jobs v Mubia (1970) EA 476 LAW. 52. Learned Counsel also filed his supplementary submissions dated 18th March, 2026. He submitted that the County Surveyor's report dated 14th May, 2025 (PExh.7) ought to be adopted as evidence since the initial survey confirmed the external boundaries of Parcel 3227. 53. He also submitted that the report established the actual utilization and ground position within the suit parcel. He argued that both parties consented to and participated in the survey exercise and the Respondent never raised any procedural objections during the survey. 54. He further submitted that the Respondent cannot reject the findings simply because the outcome was unfavorable to him. He added that the Respondent failed to point out any illegality, error or bias in the report. 55. It was his submission that the Respondent never produced any counter-survey report. 56. In conclusion, he submitted that adopting the expert report would bring end to the boundary dispute and facilitate practical and final resolution of the suit. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 57. Counsel for the Respondent filed his submissions dated 2 nd February, 2021 where he submitted that the sale agreement bore two names of the vendors Oguta Ondago and Omiti Msnjiro. He added that the land measured 3.75 acres and the two owned it in undivided equal shares. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 12

page 12 of 23

58. It was his submission that the Applicant filed a case before the Land District Tribunal which ruled that the suit land was to be divided between the Applicant and Respondent. He added that the Respondent commenced succession proceedings in respect of his father’s share being 3227 and measuring 2.5 acres (1.0Ha) where he was issued with a title on 17 th July, 2015. 59. Counsel submitted that since the Applicant had not paid the full purchase price, his suit fails on that ground. He added that the sale agreement was null and void for lack of Land Control Board Consent. 60. He submitted that the 12-year period stopped running from the time the hearing at the Land Dispute Tribunal commenced between the parties in 2005. 61. He also filed submissions dated 7th February, 2026 where he submitted that the Green Card showed that the land was originally registered in the joint names of Oguta Ondago and Omiti Misnjiro on 5th August, 1974 and later in the joint names of Oguta Ondago and Jared Omondi Omiti on 22nd July, 2014. 62. He argued that because the purchase agreement dated 20 th August, 1985 involved joint owners, the Applicant’s claim fails because he failed to join Oguta Ondogo (a registered co-owner) to the instant suit. 63. He also submitted that the tribunal’s ruling had been adopted as an order of the court by the SRMC Oyugis in Misc Application number 2 of 2026 on 28th June, 2007. He argued that the present suit had been filed without having obtained extension orders from the court. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 13

page 13 of 23

64. It was his submission that the surveyor failed to produce an invitation letter inviting parties to the site so as to clarify occupied portions. He added that the only shaded portion on the sketch map belonged to the Applicant and any additional area claimed by the Applicant was taken by force. 65. In conclusion, he urged the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 66. This Court has carefully considered the submissions, the parties’ pleadings, the law and the evidence. It is of the view that the issues that arise for determination are: a) Whether the Applicant has proved his claim for adverse possession on the portion of the suit parcel. b) Who should bear the costs of the suit. 67. The doctrine of adverse possession is founded under Sections 7, 13, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Further, in order for one to succeed in the claim for adverse possession, a party must prove he had uninterruptedly possessed and occupied the suit land continuously and the Defendant was aware of such. Section 7 of the Act provides as follows: “An action may not be brought by any person to recover land after the end of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he claims, to that person. Section 13 “(1) A right of action to recover land does not accrue unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run (which HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 14

page 14 of 23

possession is in this Act referred to as adverse possession), and, where under sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act a right of action to recover land accrues on a certain date and no person is in adverse possession on that date, a right of action does not accrue unless and until some person takes adverse possession of the land…” 68. It was the Applicant’s case that he had purchased the suit land Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407 from the Respondent’s father Omiti Misinjiro and Oguta Ondago for a consideration of Kshs. 60,000/=. He produced a copy of the sale agreement dated 20 th August, 1995. He also produced the green card which showed that parcel no. 1407 was sub divided to form 3226 and 3227. 69. It was also his case that the parcel in dispute was 3227 which had been occupied by both the Applicant and Respondent. The Applicant claimed that he had been in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful occupation of 1½ Ha of the parcel since 1995 (26 years) and had therefore adversely acquired the same. 70. The Respondent on the other hand contends that the Applicant’s claim for adverse possession should fail on the ground that he had not completed payment of Kshs. 20,000 being the final consideration suit land. He also contends that the Applicant had encroached onto his land. 71. In the case of Abdulkhall Mohamed Abdulkhalik Mazurui & 2 others V Josiah Kafuta J. Mtila & another [2021] KECA 653 (KLR) the court held that: HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 15

page 15 of 23

“The burden of proving adverse possession lay with the 1st respondent who made the claim. That burden was to be discharged by him demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that his possession was adverse; open, peaceful, without consent of the 1st and 2nd appellants and for an uninterrupted period of 12 years, expressed in Latin as nec vi, nec clam, nec precario Or, as Lord Hoffmann put it in R v Oxfordshire County Council ex p. Sunningwell Parish Council [2000] 1AC 335 at 350, 'not by force, nor stealth, nor the licence of the owner.” 72. It is this court’s view that from the evidence adduced and testimonies by PW1, DW1 and DW2, it was clear that the boundaries could not be ascertained up to the time PW2, the County Surveyor was engaged. 73. From the evidence of PW1 and PW5 it was clear that the size to which the PW1 claimed to have occupied was inconsistent. PW1 claimed that he occupied 4.25 acres and at the same time 1½ acres. During re-examination, PW1 stated that there was a boundary issue on the suit parcel where the Respondent claimed that he had extended cultivation. 74. DW1 on the other hand argued that the suit parcel measured approximately 100ft by 120ft. He also argued that PW1 had extended his cultivation on to his portion and encroached up to about 4 metres and more. 75. On cross examination, DW1 admitted that he had no issue if PW1 retained the original boundary. He also admitted that the size had not been confirmed. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 16

page 16 of 23

76. It is my humble opinion that this outrightly showed that neither the Applicant nor Respondent knew the exact size of the disputed portion to which the Applicant had allegedly extended to the Respondents portion. Notably, this is a critical ingredient of adverse possession that the owner of the land against whom the claim is sought. 77. In line with Article 159 of the Constitution and based on the fact that both parties had closed their case and awaiting judgment the court, vide its ruling in lieu of judgment dated 18 th March, 2024, directed the Land Registrar and County Surveyor (PW2) to determine its boundaries and the ground position of 3227. 78. PW2 gave his evidence and confirmed that Central Kaspul/Kamuma/1407 had already been subdivided into two being Kasipul/Kamuma/3226 and 3227 and that the portion in dispute was parcel 3227. 79. He testified that the position occupied by the Applicant measured 0.60Ha and that the ground had a clear natural fence that separated parcel 3227 into two. He added that the said portion was covered with maize and cassava. He also testified that the Respondent’s portion was 0.3Ha and was covered with maize plantations. He produced the report (PExh 7) dated 14 th May, 2025 which the Respondent did not challenge. 80. On cross examination, PW2 confirmed that the Land Registrar was not obligated to attend the visit. He also confirmed that from the sketch annexed to the report, the star line drawn showed the position of both the Applicant and Respondent on the ground. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 17

page 17 of 23

81. It was not in dispute that both the Applicant and Respondent were present on site and that the Respondent never disputed the sketch as drawn by PW2. PW2 explained sufficiently the area occupied by the parties and demonstrated it by the Sketch he drew. 82. In the case of Lewa V Mwagandi [2015] KECA 532 (KLR) the court held that: “The essential prerequisites being that the possession of the adverse possessor is neither by force or stealth or under the licence of the owner. It must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that possession is adverse to the title owner.” 83. It is my view that from the report and PW2’s testimony, the Applicant’s claim would thus yield a definite claim of occupation for a period as required for such a claim. Furthermore, the Respondent admitted that the Applicant had been on the land since his (DW1’s) childhood, and that the ‘extensions’/ encroachments he claimed to have not known how and why they were made were, apparently, carried out many years ago. 84. It without a doubt that the ingredient of specificity in an adverse possession claim is vital before the court delves into the issue. 85. It is my opinion that PW2’s evidence brought a precise and a clear position as to the exact size of the suit parcel and confirmed the Applicant’s occupation on the said parcel. It is a fact that PW2’s evidence was necessary since it confirmed that HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 18

page 18 of 23

the boundaries were fixed going by the natural fence that divided the suit parcel into two. 86. This court has also considered the evidence by way of proceedings in the Land Dispute Tribunal at Oyugis (PExh 3) and it is not in dispute that the Respondent’s deceased father and Oguta Ondago sold the suit parcel to the Applicant and the balance of Kshs. 20,000 was cleared in the same year of 1995 when the deceased fell sick. 87. I have also considered the evidence of the Respondent in the proceedings (page 4 paragraph one) where he requested the chairman that he was willing to repay the Applicant the Kshs. 60,000 in place of the sold land. It is my view that the said evidence by the Respondent confirms that consideration of the suit parcel was done in full. 88. In the case of Public Trustee v Wanduru Ndegwa [1984] KECA 72 (KLR) Kneller JA held as follows: “The position of a vendor and a purchaser of registered land is this. The vendor as the registered owner retains the legal estate and becomes the trustee of it for the purchaser when the purchaser pays a deposit for it. The vendor retains a lien on the property for the balance of the purchase money which disappears when it is paid and the purchaser then becomes the sole beneficial owner and the vendor becomes a bare trustee for the purchaser. If the vendor trustee allows the purchaser cestui qui trust to remain in possession the latter is in adverse possession because the vendor as the HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 19

page 19 of 23

absent registered owner always retains the legal estate and this prima facie entitles him to resume possession from the purchaser in possession. The limitation period will begin to run from the date of the payment of the purchase price in full or last instalment of it. See Harman J in Bridges v Mees, [1957] I Ch 475; and Simpson J (as he then was) in Hosea v Njiru Ors, [1974] EA 526 (K). The upshot is that although Kamau is the proprietor of this registered land Mrs Muthoni is in possession and actual occupation of it and has been in possession of it for over twelve years so she has rights acquired under the Limitation of Actions Act…” 89. Further, the Court of Appeal in Tilak Company Ltd V Mageta Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal E080 of 2021) [2024] KECA 342 (KLR) held as follows: “Clearly understood, the position is that time starts to run upon payment of the last instalment, or if it has not been paid, upon repudiation of the contract. The position is that time starts to run after payment of the last instalment of the purchase price…” 90. In the present case, it is not in dispute that on 28 th August, 1995 the Applicant purchased the suit property from the Respondent’s deceased father and Oguta Ondago at a consideration of Kshs. 60,000/=. It is also not in dispute that the last installment of the purchase price was also paid in the same year. HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 20

page 20 of 23

91. It was the Applicant’s case that he has been in quiet, peaceful and continuous occupation of the suit property after purchasing the same. 92. In view of the above, it is this court’s opinion that the Applicant having paid the full purchase price, the limitation period begun running from the year 1995 culminating to a total of 26 years. 93. I therefore find that more than 12 years have since lapsed from the time the Applicant took possession of the portion of the suit parcel. 94. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Applicant has satisfied the requirements on adverse possession to the extent of 0.60Ha of parcel 3227 being a subdivision of Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407. This Court therefore enters judgment for the Plaintiff/Applicant against the Defendant/Respondent as follows: a) The Applicant is hereby declared to have become entitled by adverse possession to 0.60 Ha being part of land parcel number Central Kasipul/Kamuma/3227, arising from a subdivision of all that piece or parcel of land known as Title Number: Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407 (Suit property). b) The Land Registrar Rachuonyo is hereby ordered to register the Applicant herein as the Sole Proprietor of 0.60 Ha being part of land parcel number Central Kasipul/Kamuma/3227, arising from a subdivision of all that piece or parcel of HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 21

page 21 of 23

land known as Title Number: Central Kasipul/Kamuma/1407 in the place of JARED OMONDI OMITI, the Respondent. c) The Respondent by himself, his servants, his employees, his agents or otherwise whomsoever acting pursuant to his instructions individually or collectively or otherwise be permanently restrained from trespassing, alienating, entering, occupying, dealing and/or interfering in any way with the Applicant’s quiet possession, use, occupation, development and proprietorship of the suit premises or any part thereof. d) The Applicant is to cause, at his own cost, the national surveyor in charge of Homabay County, and the Land Registrar of the said County to visit the said parcel of land and carry out a survey to carve out the specific portion of land the Plaintiff occupies on preparing the suit mutation land, forms for purposes and of transfer instruments for registration as directed in (b) and (c) above e) The Applicant shall have the costs of this suit. 95. It is so ordered. Judgment dated, signed and delivered virtually via the Teams Platform this 6th day of October 2026. Hon. Dr. iur Nyagaka Judge HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 22

page 22 of 23

In the presence of: Achillah Advocate for the Plaintiff Okenye Advocate for the Defendant, absent HB ELC E009 OF 2021 (OS)-JDGT 23

page 23 of 23