Maritim v Korir (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8337 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner lost five acres after 50 years of someone else's open occupation — proof that long, quiet inaction can extinguish your 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 parcel of land in dispute is registered in the name of a person other than the applicant
- 2.Whether the applicant is in open and exclusive possession of the land in an adverse manner to the title of the owner
- 3.Whether the applicant has been in that occupation for a period in excess of twelve years having dispossessed the owner or there having been discontinuance of possession by the owner
- 4.Whether the applicant is entitled to registration as proprietor and to a declaration of constructive trust
- 5.Costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Adverse possession of a definite portion of registered land
The Plaintiff proved adverse possession of five acres out of LR Nandi/Chepnoet/558 since 1972, exceeding twelve years, dispossessing the registered owner
The suit land was registered in the name of Deceased-2 and subsequently the Defendant. PW1 and PW2 testified to open, peaceful and continuous occupation since 1972 without interruption. The court applied the criteria in Wilson Kazungu Katana and found possession adverse to the registered owner's title, dispossessing him and extinguishing his title.
Constructive trust arising from the purchase agreement
The Defendant holds the five acres in trust for the Plaintiff by operation of a constructive trust
Ground (e) of the summons and paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit disclosed a constructive trust. Guided by Willy Kitilit and Article 10(2)(b) of the Constitution on equity, the court found the purchase agreement and Ad Litem grant established equitable interests in the Plaintiff's favour.
Uncontroverted evidence in a formal proof hearing
The Plaintiff's unchallenged claim was established on a balance of probabilities
The Defendant was duly served but did not enter appearance or file a defence. Following Nganga Kiongo, evidence given on oath that is not countered is uncontroverted and likely to succeed on a balance of probabilities; the burden on the plaintiff is not lessened in formal proof.
Legal principles established
#- Adverse possession requires the land be registered in another's name, open and exclusive adverse possession, and occupation exceeding twelve years dispossessing the owner
- The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff on a balance of probabilities even where the suit proceeds by way of formal proof
- A defendant who fails to enter appearance or file a defence leaves the plaintiff's evidence uncontroverted, which may still succeed on a balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the originating summons dated 30th May 2024
- 2.A declaration that the Defendant's right to recover the five acres is barred under the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 and his title thereto extinguished
- 3.An order that the Plaintiff be registered as proprietor of the five acres of the suit land and/or the register be rectified accordingly
- 4.The Defendant to execute all requisite papers necessary to have the Plaintiff registered as owner of the portion of the suit land
- 5.Costs of the suit borne by the Defendant
- 6.The Defendant holds the five acres of the suit land in trust for the Plaintiff by dint of prayer Number 5 of the summons
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 and sections 7 and 38 thereof; Order 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
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.
Wherefore, Judgement is hereby entered for the Plaintifi against the defendant in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 in the originating summons dated 30th May 2024 and that the Defendant holds the five acres of the suit land in trust for the Plaintifi by dint of prayer Number 5 in the said summons
The Applicant must be in that occupation for a period in excess of twelve years having dispossessed the owner or there having been discontinuance of possession by the owner.
It is settled law that the burden is always on the party bringing the suit to prove their case on a balance of probabilities.
the claim was uncontroverted, unchallenged and likely to succeed on a balance of probabilities.
Issues in the judgment
#The plaintiff's name is not stated in the body of the judgment; parties are referred to only as Plaintiff and Defendant. There is also a possible parcel number discrepancy (the summons referred to Nandi/Chepnoet/554 in error, corrected to Nandi/Chepnoet/558), which the court itself noted and corrected
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maritim v Korir (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8337 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 30th May 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8337/eng@2025-11-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.