Opama v Murunga & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E015 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4510 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Busia court awarded a buyer two land parcels by adverse possession after 15 years of open occupation, but refused the extra acre occupied without a proven sale.
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 Defendants are the proprietors of the parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118, 4119 and 4120 measuring 5 acres
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff has been in occupation and use of the aforesaid parcels of land for a period exceeding 12 years
- 3.Whether the occupation and use has been open, notorious and un-interrupted
- 4.Whether the Plaintiff has acquired ownership through adverse possession
- 5.Whether the Defendants should pay costs of the suit
Key legal issues
#Extent of the land purchased by the Plaintiff from the 1st Defendant
The Plaintiff purchased 4 acres, not the 5 acres claimed; the disputed agreement for the additional 1 acre was disowned by the 1st Defendant
The court examined the three sale agreements, noting that the agreement dated 01/15/07 for one acre was disputed by the 1st Defendant who denied her signature. Weighing this against the consistent testimony of the 1st Defendant and DW2 that only 4 acres were sold to be shared between the Plaintiff and his brother, the court found the purchase was of 4 acres only.
Whether the Plaintiff acquired land parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4119 by adverse possession from the 2nd Defendant
Yes - the claim was unopposed and the Plaintiff had been in occupation for some 15 years by the time the 2nd Defendant obtained title
The 2nd Defendant filed no pleading and did not testify, so the claim against him was uncontroverted. The Plaintiff had occupied since 2006. The boundary dispute was between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, not the 2nd. Even if the 2nd Defendant had asserted his rights upon registration in 2021, the 12-year period had already run and the title was extinguished.
Whether the Plaintiff acquired land parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 by adverse possession from the 1st Defendant
Yes - the 1st Defendant admitted the Plaintiff bought 2 acres in 2001 and 2 acres in 2006 and had been using 4 acres since purchase
In cross-examination the 1st Defendant conceded both the 2001 and 2006 agreements and that the Plaintiff had been using the 4 acres from the time of purchase. This was a clear admission entitling the Plaintiff to the orders sought against her in respect of parcel 4118, and she had relinquished her interest in it.
Whether the Plaintiff acquired land parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4120 by adverse possession from the 3rd Defendant
No - the claim against the 3rd Defendant was dismissed as the occupation was through stealth
Since the court found only 4 acres were purchased, any occupation of the 1 acre later sold and transferred to the 3rd Defendant was without the knowledge or consent of the 1st Defendant and thus by stealth. Adverse possession must not be by force, secrecy or evasion, so the claim failed.
Whether a surveyor's evidence was necessary to establish the size of land occupied
No - the claim was for the whole of a parcel whose registered acreage was not in dispute
The Plaintiff claimed the whole of parcel 4119, whose title deed confirmed it measures 2.076 acres (0.8 Ha). Surveyor evidence would only have been necessary had the Plaintiff claimed a portion of the parcel or had the acreage itself been disputed, which was not the case.
Legal principles established
#- To be entitled to land by adverse possession the claimant must prove exclusive, open and uninterrupted possession as of right for 12 years
- Interruption of adverse possession occurs only when the registered proprietor takes legal proceedings or makes an effective entry into the land
- A purchaser who has paid the full purchase price is a party in whose favour time for adverse possession can run
- Possession by force, secrecy or stealth cannot found a claim in adverse possession
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff has acquired the land parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 and 4119 by way of adverse possession
- 2.The rights of the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant in the said parcels of land have been extinguished
- 3.The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall within 30 days of delivery of this judgment surrender to the Land Registrar Busia the original title deeds for the land parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 and 4119 for cancellation
- 4.In default of surrender, the Land Registrar Busia shall cancel the register of the land parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 and 4119 in the names of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and register the same in the name of the Plaintiff
- 5.The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall meet the Plaintiff's costs of this suit
- 6.The Plaintiff's suit against the 3rd Defendant is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act (claim for registration as proprietor by adverse possession)
Relief refused
#Declaration of adverse possession over land parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4120
The court found the Plaintiff only purchased 4 acres and not the 5 acres claimed; any occupation of the 1 acre registered to the 3rd Defendant was through stealth, which cannot sustain adverse possession
Costs
The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall meet the Plaintiff's costs of this suit; the Plaintiff's suit against the 3rd Defendant is dismissed with costs (i.e. Plaintiff to pay the 3rd Defendant's costs)
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 Plaintiff has acquired the land parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 and 4119 by way of adverse possession
The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall within 30 days of delivery of this judgment surrender to the Land Registrar Busia the original title deeds for the land parcels NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4118 and 4119 for cancellation
The 1st and 2nd Defendants shall meet the Plaintiff's costs of this suit
The Plaintiff's suit against the 3rd Defendant is dismissed with costs
I am persuaded that the Plaintiff only purchased 4 acres of land from the 1st Defendant and not 5 acres as he claims
Time ceases to run under the Limitation of Actions Act either when the owner asserts his right or when his right is admitted by the adverse possessor
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on registration of the original parcel: paragraph 31 states the original land parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/3816 was registered in the Plaintiff's name, whereas the rest of the judgment records that the 1st Defendant was the vendor and the suit parcels derive from her
Inconsistent description of ownership of parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4120: it is described as registered in the names of both the 1st and 3rd Defendants, yet elsewhere only in the 3rd Defendant's name
The register for parcel NO SOUTH TESO/OSURETTE/4119 is said to show registration in the name of the 1st Defendant, though the parcel was created as one of the three in the names of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Opama v Murunga & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E015 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 4510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Busia ELC Case No. E015 of 2021 (O.S). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4510/eng@2026-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.