Vakasi & another v Nasimiyu (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1594 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed landowners' bid to stop their eviction because they missed two key requirements for an adverse possession claim.
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 applicant has met the conditions for grant of temporary injunction and status quo orders pending hearing and determination of this suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case for temporary injunction founded on adverse possession
No prima facie case; the applicants had not been in adverse possession for 12 years from the respondent's 2014 registration and failed to comply with Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2) by attaching an extract of title
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. The respondent's title deed showed the parcel was opened in 2001 but registered in her name in 2014, so less than 12 years had elapsed when the suit was filed. Additionally, the applicants failed to attach the extract of title/green card mandatory under Order 37 Rule 7, making the suit incompetent and preventing the court from ascertaining the title history.
Legal principles established
#- An application for adverse possession must be supported by an affidavit with an extract of title of the disputed land attached, failing which the court cannot ascertain the history of the title
- A claim for adverse possession requires 12 years of adverse occupation, computed from registration of the current proprietor
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Prohibitory injunction, status quo ante and temporary injunction restraining eviction, enforcement of eviction notices and dealing with parcel Isukha/Kambiri/1464
No prima facie case demonstrated; application for adverse possession lacked the mandatory extract of title required by Order 37 Rule 7(1) and (2); 12 years had not lapsed since registration of the respondent in 2014
Costs
Application dismissed with costs (to the respondent)
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 therefore find no merit in the application dated 16th June 2025, which I dismiss with costs.
A prima facie case in a civil application includes but not confined to a genuine and arguable case. It is a case which on the material presented to court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.
the court finds that the applicant has not demonstrated a prima facie case and the suit as currently presented is incompetent for non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 7 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title and case number are not stated in the judgment; the suit number is not disclosed anywhere
Inconsistency in the applicants' stated portions - the motion refers to portions measuring 0.12 and 0.248 HA while the affidavit is described as claiming 0.248 Ha and 0.21 Ha respectively
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vakasi & another v Nasimiyu (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1594/eng@2026-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.