Khaluyile v Murabi & another (Sued as Administrators and representatives of the Estate of Stephano Wasia-Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E082 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3903 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kakamega dismissed a land claim because the claimant had no documents or clear evidence proving 12 years of peaceful occupation.
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 trial court was wrong in concluding that the appellant failed to prove his claim over the suit property under the doctrine of adverse possession
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant proved a claim of adverse possession over L.R No. Kakamega/Lukume/377
The appellant failed to prove adverse possession; the trial court's dismissal of the claim was correct and the appeal was dismissed
The court reiterated the statutory scheme under sections 7, 13, 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the requirement of open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession for 12 years. The appellant neither pleaded nor testified as to the manner of his occupation, produced no extract of title as required under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the evidence showed ongoing boundary disputes over the land, negativing peaceful occupation. The trial court's conclusions therefore required no interference.
Legal principles established
#- To prove adverse possession, possession must be shown to be adequate in continuity, publicity and extent, and adverse to the registered owner
- A claimant in an adverse possession suit must plead and prove the manner of occupation and produce documentary evidence including an extract of title under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- The duty of a first appellate court is to re-analyze, re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions while allowing for the lack of advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Kakamega (Environment and Land Court, CM ELC)
- Kakamega CM ELC Case No. E020 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the trial magistrate's court in an ELC matter
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment of 30th October 2024 and substitution with a declaration that the appellant had acquired the suit property by adverse possession and is entitled to be registered as proprietor of L.R No. Kakamega/Lukume/377
The appellant did not plead or prove the manner of his occupation, produced no documentary evidence including an extract of title, and there was evidence of boundary disputes negativing peaceful and continuous possession
Order that each party bear their own costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
The upshot is that I find no merit in this appeal, which I dismiss with costs to the respondents.
Therefore, the appellant made assertions that were not substantiated. There was therefore no evidence of the appellant's occupation of the suit property.
The appellant did not produce a single document to prove his claim, not even an extract of title of the suit property, which is a requirement for every claim of adverse possession, under the provisions of Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Therefore, there was evidence that there had been no peaceful occupation of the suit property.
This being a first appeal, the duty of this court as a first appellate court is to re-analyze, re-evaluate and re-assess the evidence tendered before the trial court
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternates inconsistently between referring to the party as 'appellant' and 'applicant'/'plaintifi' in the same passages, e.g. describing the lower-court claimant's pleadings while the matter is an appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khaluyile v Murabi & another (Sued as Administrators and representatives of the Estate of Stephano Wasia-Deceased) (Environment and Land Appeal E082 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3903 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt (Kakamega ELC Appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3903/eng@2026-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.