Ajowi (Suing as Legal Representative of Pitalis Ajowi Owuor) v Fredrick Omondi Omollo (Suing as Legal Representative of Paul Ariwa - Deceased) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6874 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed a son's adverse possession land claim because he provided no real proof of occupation and disputed the owners' title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff and his father were in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the suit land for over 12 years
Not proved - no evidence of actual possession was exhibited
The court found the plaintiff's testimony contradicted: he said the 1st Defendant demolished the houses on the land in 2019, while PW2 said the houses of the plaintiff and his father still stood on the land. No photographs or other evidence of occupation were produced. The claim by a party suing as administrator of his father's estate, alleging the owner obtained title by fraud, failed on a balance of probabilities.
Whether a plaintiff alleging fraudulent registration can rely on adverse possession
No - adverse possession requires acknowledgement of the registered owner's title
The plaintiff claimed the Respondents obtained registration by false representation and trickery. The court held that the doctrine of adverse possession requires the claimant to recognise ownership of the land by the defendant, citing Langat v Byomdo, Yaa v Nyaje and Lukholola v Aluvale. A claimant who disputes the defendant's title cannot simultaneously hinge a claim on that title.
Whether the Defendant's 2019 entry and fencing terminated any accrued adverse possession rights
Yes - the owner's effective entry and taking possession stopped time from running
On the plaintiff's own evidence, the Defendant entered the land as registered owner, fenced it, took possession and denied the plaintiff access in 2019. Relying on Kiritu v Kabura, Maungu v Were, Kim Pavey and Githu v Ndeete, the court held that such assertion of right by effective entry stops time running under the Limitation of Actions Act, terminating any rights the plaintiff may have acquired.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant of adverse possession must first acknowledge the ownership of the suit land by the titleholder against whom the claim is made
- Time ceased to run in favour of an adverse possessor when the registered owner asserts his right by effective entry or legal proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The Originating Summons is dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under sections 7, 13 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (adverse possession claim by Originating Summons)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ajowi (Suing as Legal Representative of Pitalis Ajowi Owuor) v Fredrick Omondi Omollo (Suing as Legal Representative of Paul Ariwa - Deceased) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6874 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 25th July, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6874/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.