George Kiunga M'Rinkanyaa & Another v Nderia Farmers' Cooperative Society Limited
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Meru dismissed a claim for land by adverse possession because the occupants were on the land with the owner's permission, not against the owner's will.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established adverse possession
No - their occupation was with the Defendant's permission and lacked the requisite hostility and animus possidendi
The court found the Plaintiffs did not even know who owned the land until February 2025 when they bought a green card, negating animus possidendi. The Defendant's uncontroverted replying affidavit averred that the Plaintiffs entered in 2024 with permission to farm vacant portions and were barred from erecting structures. The 2nd Plaintiff, entrusted with machinery as area manager, chose not to testify, inviting an adverse inference. Permission negates adversity.
Whether the Plaintiffs discharged the burden of proof
No - the burden lay squarely on the Plaintiffs and was not discharged
Relying on sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act and the Mucheru and Karugi authorities, the court reaffirmed that the burden on a plaintiff remains constant throughout the trial and is not lessened where the case is undefended or heard by formal proof. The Plaintiffs failed to controvert the Defendant's evidence or cross-examine DW1 on the permission averments.
Legal principles established
#- Consent and permission by the registered owner of land negates a claim of adverse possession
- A claimant must prove open, continuous, uninterrupted and non-secretive possession known to the registered owner (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario)
- A claimant unaware of the registered owner lacks animus possidendi
- Failure to respond to pertinent averments in a replying affidavit renders them unrebutted
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' suit be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit be and are hereby awarded to the Defendant
- 3.The costs in terms of clause (ii) shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George Kiunga M'Rinkanyaa & Another v Nderia Farmers' Cooperative Society Limited", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 20th June 2025 (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/325/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.