Ndoro & 3 others v Mwereni Group Ranch (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2527 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Four families won ownership of 24.5 acres in Kwale after occupying it openly for over 47 years, gaining title deeds 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 the suit instituted by the Plaintiffs through the filed originating summons/Plaint against the Defendant has any merit whatsoever
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs herein are entitled to the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs proved title by adverse possession over the 9.88 hectares
Yes - the court found open, continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted occupation exceeding 47 years, well beyond the statutory 12 years, extinguishing the defendant's title over the portion
The court applied Sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Section 28(h) of the Land Registration Act. Evidence of graves, cultivation, homesteads, a surveyor's report establishing 9.88 hectares, and corroboration by a neighbour and the Sub-Chief established possession that was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. The defendant, though served, filed no defence, leaving the plaintiffs' evidence uncontroverted but still tested against the balance of probabilities.
Effect of the defendant's failure to file a defence or adduce evidence
The plaintiffs' evidence stood unchallenged but the plaintiff still had to discharge the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities
Relying on Charter House Bank Ltd v Frank N. Kamau, the court held that uncontroverted evidence must still be credible and believable. Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act place the burden on the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiffs adduced credible, corroborated evidence, so the scales tilted in their favour despite the defendant's silence and indolence.
Who should bear the costs of the suit
The defendant, having been served and having failed to contest, should bear the plaintiffs' costs with interest
Applying Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Morgan Air Cargo Ltd v Everest Enterprises Ltd, costs follow the event. The court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule; the defendant's indolence meant it would be unjust to burden the plaintiffs with costs of a suit they were compelled to bring.
Legal principles established
#- Even where a defendant fails to answer the claim, the plaintiff does not escape the burden and standard of proof
- At the expiration of the limitation period, the title of the registered proprietor is extinguished
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiffs as per the Plaint converted from the Originating Summons dated 4th October, 2023, in its entirety
- 2.A declaration issued that the Plaintiffs have acquired ownership by way of adverse possession of the portion of land measuring 9.88 hectares (24.5 acres) hived from L.R No. Kwale/Mwereni/14
- 3.The Land Registrar, Kwale, directed to excise the said portion from the larger parcel, register the Plaintiffs as proprietors thereof and issue them individual title deeds
- 4.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents or anyone acting under its instructions from interfering with the Plaintiffs' quiet possession, occupation and use of the said portion
- 5.Costs of the suit borne by the Defendant, payable to the Plaintiffs, with interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 17, 18, 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 and Order 36 Rule 30 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.
THAT a declaration be and is hereby issued that the Plaintifis have acquired ownership by way of adverse possession of the portion of land measuring 9.88 hectares (24.5 acres) hived from L.R No. Kwale/Mwereni/14.
THAT the Land Registrar, Kwale, be and is hereby directed to excise the said portion from the larger parcel and to register the Plaintifis as proprietors thereof, and to issue them with individual title deeds accordingly.
THAT a permanent injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents, or anyone acting under its instructions from interfering with the Plaintifis' quiet possession, occupation, and use of the said portion of land.
THAT the costs of the suit shall be borne by the Defendant, payable to the Plaintifis, together with interest at court rates from the date of Judgment until payment in full.
It is also a well settled principle that a party claiming Adverse Possession ought to prove that this Possession was “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario,” that is, peaceful, open and continuous.
In order to be entitled to land by Adverse Possession, the claimant must prove that he has been in exclusive possession of the land openly and as of right without interruption for a period of 12 years either after dispossessing the owner or by discontinuation of possession by the owner on his own volition
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting acreage claimed: the reliefs seek 6 acres while the body of the judgment repeatedly describes the claimed portion as 9.88 hectares (24.5 acres)
Internally inconsistent parcel size: described as '43,466 hectares', 'approximately 107,405 acres' and '43466HA' for the same parcel
Conflicting dates for commencement of occupation and inconsistent acreage in submissions ('1 Acre', occupation 'from the year 1990') versus the pleaded 47 years since 1959/1976
Signature block dated 2026 while judgment delivery was reserved for 27th November 2025 and the body refers to 2024/2025 events; internal paragraph numbering is also erratic (repeated '19')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndoro & 3 others v Mwereni Group Ranch (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 2527 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Originating Summons dated 4th October, 2023 (ELC, Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2527/eng@2026-04-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.