Meyo v Njoga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8058 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kisumu dismissed a 21-year adverse possession land claim because the claimant couldn't prove exactly which land he occupied and when his claim started.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether by virtue of having been in open, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation of L.R. No. KISUMU/RERU/2324 for 21 years, the Plaintiff is entitled to be declared the owner of the said parcel of land and to have the same registered in his name
- 2.Whether the Defendant ought to be ordered to effect transfer of the said parcel of land into the name of the Plaintiff and failing that, the Deputy Registrar of the court sign such documents necessary to effect transfer
- 3.Whether the Defendant ought to be ordered to pay the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's entry and occupation was adverse to the Defendant
Entry was not with the Defendant's permission or license, so entry was adverse
The Defendant alleged he licensed Amol Onyuka to use the land, but gave inconsistent reasons (goodwill as cousin versus absence). The court found no evidence of any license. Since the Plaintiff did not enter with permission from the registered owner, his entry was adverse to the Defendant's interest.
Whether the Plaintiff proved exclusive, open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession for the prescribed period
No - the claim failed on the size of the portion claimed and the start of the limitation period
The pleadings claimed the entire 0.35Ha but oral evidence introduced a portion (lower part, about 0.2Ha) contrary to pleadings; no surveyor's report fixed the portion occupied. No sale agreement or proof of payment of purchase price was produced, so when time began to run was unresolved. Burden of proof under section 107 of the Evidence Act was not discharged.
Costs
Costs follow the event; the Defendant gets costs
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event. Having failed, the Plaintiff bears the Defendant's costs.
Legal principles established
#- A claimant in adverse possession must prove exclusive, open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession
- Parties are bound by their pleadings; evidence at variance with pleadings must be disregarded
- Where only a portion of land is claimed by adverse possession, the size of the portion must be pleaded and proved; a surveyor's report is the best evidence
- Time for adverse possession under a land sale agreement runs from the date of payment of the purchase price, which must be proved
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land claims (Originating Summons under the Limitation of Actions Act, sections 7, 13 and 17)
Relief refused
#Declaration that the Plaintiff has acquired L.R. No. KISUMU/RERU/2324 by adverse possession and be registered as proprietor
Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof: entry was not shown to be permissive, but the size of the portion claimed and the period of occupation were left unresolved; pleadings claimed the entire land while oral evidence claimed only a portion
Order directing the Defendant to effect transfer of the suit land (or the Deputy Registrar to execute transfer documents)
No basis for an order for transfer once the adverse possession claim failed
Costs
The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant (costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act).
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.
I find that the entry of the Plaintifi onto the suit land was not with permission or license from the Defendant.
The result is that the plaintifi has failed to discharge the burden of prove his claim therefore fails. The suit is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
In a claim of adverse possession, it is not only very crucial to identify the land the subject matter of the claim but also, particularly in a case where only a portion of the land is claimed, the size of the portion which must be pleaded and proved
For a claim of adverse possession where the plaintifi claims to have entered the suit land on the strength of a land sale agreement, time for adverse possession only starts to run from the date of payment of the purchase price.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiff's submissions sought registration of 'a portion' of L.R. No. KISUMU/RERU/2324 'measuring 0.35 Ha', which is the size of the entire parcel, internally inconsistent with claiming only a portion
Case name and spelling inconsistencies: 'Gabriel Mbui v Mukindia Muranya' in submissions versus 'Gabriel Mbui -v- Mukindia Maranya' in the court's analysis; also 'Bakshwein' versus 'Bakhshwein' for the same authority
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meyo v Njoga (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8058 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 17th May, 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8058/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.