Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Silas B.m Makinya & 1 other v Livingstone Koome Barana

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU ELC CASE NO. 2 OF 2014 (OS) SILAS B.M MAKINYA.........................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS LIVINGSTONE KOOME BARANA....................DEFENDANT RULING 1. On 30th October, 2014 this Court entered judgment against the Plaintiff in the following terms.:(1) It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff has become entitled under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (cap 22 Laws of Kenya) to be registered as a proprietor by adverse possession in lieu of the present registered proprietor of all the parcel of land Known as L.R No. NTIMA/IGOKI/ 3001 which the plaintiff has been in peaceful, undisturbed and uninterrupted possession and occupation since the year 1987. (2) Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff. 2. On 11th November, 2015 this Court meant to facilitate the Judgment of this Court. However, a typographical error referred to prayer 2 instead of prayer 1 as the prayer which the Court allowed. 3. To correct the consequences of the typographical error, and for avoidance of doubt, it is ordered as follows:i. The Executive Officer of this Court is empowered to execute all documents for transfer of land parcel No. NTIMA/IGOKI/3001 to the plaintiff , So as to give effect to the orders made by this Court on 20th October, 2014. ii. No costs are awarded in this application and the costs granted to the plaintiff in the judgment delivered on 30.19.2014 are set aside at the instance of the plaintiff. 4. It is so ordered . DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016, IN THE PRESENCE OF : C.A : Daniel /James Gatari Ringera for the Plaintiff P.M. NJOROGE JUDGE

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.