Joseph Kariuki Thuo & Another v Emily Nuna Ngaruiya (originally sued as the personal representative of the Estate of Vincent Ngaruiya Karau); Jane Nyanjuru Thuo (Intended Respondent/Applicant)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that land title lost through 12 years of adverse possession cannot be passed on to heirs through succession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Intended Respondent/Applicant has satisfied the conditions to warrant a review and/or setting aside of the Judgment of 12th February 2021
- 2.Whether the Intended Respondent/Applicant should be joined and/or substituted as a party to the proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether substituted service on an elderly Respondent was proper
Service was regular; leave for substituted service was properly granted and the mode is not restricted by age or infirmity
The Applicants, unaware of the Respondent's whereabouts, obtained leave on 4/7/2019 and served by advertisement in the Daily Nation on 16/8/2019, deemed served by 30/8/2019. The court held the discretion to allow substituted service was properly exercised and cannot be faulted merely because the Respondent was 95 years old and unlikely to see the advert.
Whether there was sufficient reason to review or set aside the judgment
No sufficient reason; the judgment was regularly obtained after due process
The suit proceeded as undefended after regular substituted service. The Applicant's complaint centred on improper service, but the court found service regular and the judgment regular. The alleged concealment of the Respondent's whereabouts and age did not supply sufficient reason for review, and the judgment had already been executed.
Whether the Intended Respondent could inherit the suit land
No; the Respondent's title had been extinguished by adverse possession before transmission
The Applicants had occupied and developed the land since 1978. Demands and notices in 1982, 1992, 2000, 2005 and 2014 did not interrupt possession; only an eviction suit would, and any such suit would have been statute-barred after 12 years. The title therefore could not pass by succession to the Intended Respondent.
Legal principles established
#- An order for substituted service is not confined to any class of persons; the test is whether the court was satisfied that substituted service was appropriate
- Only the institution of a suit for eviction interrupts the running of adverse possession; mere notices or demands do not
- A title extinguished by adverse possession cannot be transmitted to a beneficiary through succession
- An action to recover land after twelve years from accrual of the right of action is statute-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 22nd August 2023 is dismissed
- 2.No order for costs; each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent discretion of the Environment and Land Court to review/set aside its judgment and to order joinder/substitution under the applicable civil procedure rules
Relief refused
#Substitution of the Respondent with the Intended Respondent
No valid title subsisted to inherit; judgment was regularly obtained
Review/setting aside of the judgment dated 12th February 2021 and decree dated 18th January 2022
Service by substituted service was regularly done after leave of the Court; no sufficient reason for review
Orders of inhibition and injunction over title No. Mwerua/Kiandai/282
The application itself was dismissed in its entirety
Costs
No order for costs; each party will bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that I find no merit in the intended Respondent’s application and I hereby order the Notice of Motion application dated 22nd August 2023 dismissed. I make no order for costs and I direct that each party will bear their own costs.
I find that the Judgment was regularly obtained after due process. I hold there is no suficient reason adduced to warrant a review of the Judgment.
an order for substituted service is not restricted and/or confined to any specific group of persons, be they elderly and/or under any infirmity.
The title held by the Respondent had become extinguished by virtue of adverse possession by the Applicants and there was no valid title that the Intended Respondent/Applicant could legally inherit from the Respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Kariuki Thuo & Another v Emily Nuna Ngaruiya (originally sued as the personal representative of the Estate of Vincent Ngaruiya Karau); Jane Nyanjuru Thuo (Intended Respondent/Applicant)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Case of 2019 (Originating Summons, Mwerua/Kiandai/282) — Notice of Motion dated 22nd August 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/826/eng@2024-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.