Osano (Suing as the Legal Administrate of the Estate of Nyang'la Amada alias Nyangala Amada (Deceased) v Songa (Environment and Land Appeal E076 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 180 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that occupying land openly and peacefully for over 12 years can defeat even a registered owner's title through adverse possession.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim and allowing the counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff's claim for eviction and permanent injunction was barred by limitation
Yes. The respondents' predecessor entered the land in 1993 during the deceased registered owner's lifetime, who took no step to remove them; the suit filed in 2024 was time-barred.
Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act requires a claim to recover land to be filed within 12 years. Songa Ouya and the respondent entered the suit land in 1993 in the lifetime of the deceased registered owner, who took no step to assert his rights. The suit was only filed in 2024, prompted by Songa Ouya's death and burial plans. The claim was therefore time-barred and the trial court did not err in dismissing it.
Whether the appellant proved her assertion that the respondent entered the land in 2012
No. The appellant produced no evidence of entry in 2012, whereas the respondent called witnesses, particularly DW3, who testified as to when entry occurred.
Although the appellant claimed entry occurred in 2012, she produced no evidence to support it. The respondent called witnesses, including DW3, who testified how and when Songa Ouya and the respondent entered the land in 1993, built homes, farmed, raised children and buried family members. The appellant also produced no evidence of the alleged eiforts to evict the respondents.
Whether the trial court erred in finding adverse possession in favour of the respondent's counterclaim
No. The appellant's appeal lacked merit; the trial court correctly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and the law including sections 28 of the Land Registration Act and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
The court re-examined the evidence as required on a first appeal. The certificate of official search confirmed registration in the name of Nyang'la Amade. The respondent's evidence of open, continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation since 1993, including burials on the land, was uncontroverted. The trial court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff's claim and allowing the counterclaim.
Legal principles established
#- On a first appeal, the court is bound to re-examine the evidence placed before the trial court.
- A claim to recover land must be filed within 12 years from when the cause of action arose under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act; a claim filed after 12 years of occupation is time-barred.
- The burden of proof lies with the person who wishes the court to believe in the existence of a given fact (as submitted on the authority of Evans Otieno Nyakwana v Cleophas Bwana Ongaro).
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court at Kisumu
- Kisumu MC EL Case No. E002 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the magistrates' court (Environment and Land Court)
Relief refused
#Appellant's appeal (setting aside the dismissal of her claim and the counterclaim)
The claim to recover land was time-barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and the respondent had proved open, continuous and uninterrupted occupation since 1993
Costs
Each party to bear own costs of the appeal
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.
Under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, a claim to recover land ought to be filed before expiry of 12 years from the date the cause of action arose.
I find that the appellant's claim had become time barred as at the time of filing the suit.
In conclusion the court finds that the appeal herein lacks merit and dismisses it. Each party to bear own costs of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Registration date printed as '22.3.1074' - apparent typographical error for a year in the 1900s
Judgment recites that the trial court ordered 'the Defendant in the counterclaim to bear the costs of the suit', which is internally inconsistent with the counterclaim having succeeded
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Osano (Suing as the Legal Administrate of the Estate of Nyang'la Amada alias Nyangala Amada (Deceased) v Songa (Environment and Land Appeal E076 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 180 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kisumu EL Case No. E002 of 2024 (appeal against judgment dated 28th August 2024, Memorandum of Appeal dated 17th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/180/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.