Mazuri (Suing as Herself and as Legal Representative of the Estate of Mariam Juma Mwamuke) v Wanguhu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5845 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kwale declared a woman who occupied Diani land since 1978 its rightful owner through adverse possession, even though another person held the title.
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 Plaintiff had acquired the title by way of adverse possession as required by Law
- 2.Whether the parties herein are entitled to the reliefs sought herein
- 3.Who will bear the Costs of originating summons
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff acquired title to Kwale/Diani Settlement Scheme/76 by adverse possession
Yes. The Plaintiff and her family had been in continuous, open, exclusive and uninterrupted occupation since 1978, far exceeding the 12-year statutory period, without permission from or challenge by the registered owner, whose title was therefore extinguished
The court applied Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the classic elements in Wambugu v Njuguna, Kasuve v Mwaani and Gabriel Mbui. Evidence of the Applicant, a land surveyor and the area Chief established open, continuous occupation since 1978, permanent developments, farming, and no complaint or suit by the Respondent, who was registered only in 2009 and never took possession. Occupation was adverse to the registered owner whose right to recover land was time-barred.
Whether an unrepresented/unparticipating defendant relieves the plaintiff of the burden of proof
No. The applicant must still discharge the burden and standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the court must interrogate and evaluate the uncontroverted evidence
Relying on Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act and Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi v Mwangi Stephen Mureithi, the court held that formal proof requires the trial court to examine the evidence and satisfy itself that the claim is proved to the civil standard notwithstanding the defendant's non-appearance.
Whether failure to attach a title deed extract under Order 37 Rule 7 invalidates an adverse possession claim
No. The court found the purpose of the provision was to establish the status of the land, and the green card relied on by the Applicant served that purpose
The court noted the mandatory requirement of Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules but reasoned that the legislature intended availing the certified copy of title to establish the exact status of the land. The green card produced showed the registration history, was unchallenged, and established the Respondent's registration, so the claim was not defeated.
Legal principles established
#- Even in uncontroverted/formal proof proceedings, the claimant must prove the claim to the required civil standard; the absence of a defence does not lower the standard of proof
- To acquire title by adverse possession the claimant must prove exclusive, open, uninterrupted and non-permissive possession for 12 years, after dispossession or discontinuance of possession by the owner
- The green card is cogent evidence of the current ownership status of registered land
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Applicant in accordance with the Originating Summons dated 6th December 2023
- 2.The Applicant declared the rightful registered and absolute owner of Kwale/Diani Settlement Scheme/76
- 3.Order to the Registrar of Land Kwale to cancel the extinguished title, strike out the Respondent's name and enter the Applicant as sole proprietor
- 4.Permanent injunction restraining the Respondent, her servants, representatives, agents and assigns from dealing with, entering, obstructing or in any way interfering with the suit property
- 5.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court); Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22), Section 38(1)
Relief refused
#Order directing the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer documents (execution relief)
The court held the Applicant should formally move the Court for that relief by amendment, since it was orally sought only at closure of the Plaintiff's case
Costs of the suit
The Respondent neither entered appearance nor defended the claim
Costs
There shall be no orders as to 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.
That Judgement be and is hereby entered in favour of the Applicants herein in accordance with the filed Originating Summons dated 6th December 2023.
That an order is hereby issued to the registrar of Land Kwale to cancel the title having been extinguished and strike out the name of the Respondent from the register and subsequently enter the names of the Applicant as the sole proprietor of the suit property Kwale/Diani Settlement Scheme/76.
That a permanent injunction do issue restraining the Respondent whether by himself, his servants, representatives, agents and/or assigns howsoever from dealing with, entering in, obstructing any activities on, interfering with the Applicant’s agents and or representatives subdividing, demolishing any structures on selling, alienating, occupying and/or in any other was interfering with the suit property
Throughout the decided cases, the recurrent theme is that possession to be adverse must be actual, open, notorious, regular, continuously uninterrupted, hostile, exclusive occupancy held with a cherished animus possidendi under a claim of right held in good faith, without any form of permission from a knowing rightful owner entitled to immediate possession, for the statutory period.
That there shall be no orders as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment lists two consecutive issues both labelled 'Issue No. b)' - 'Whether the parties herein are entitled to the reliefs sought' and 'Who will bear the costs of the originating summons'
The affidavit supporting the suit is dated 6th December 2024 while the Originating Summons is dated 6th December 2023, an apparent internal date inconsistency
Occupation start year is stated variously as 1961 in the affidavit and 1978 in the evidence of PW1 and PW3
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mazuri (Suing as Herself and as Legal Representative of the Estate of Mariam Juma Mwamuke) v Wanguhu (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5845 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 6th December 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5845/eng@2025-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.