Jane Njoki Kimemia v Lol Daiga Meat Supplies Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
L. Gacheru
Judgment Date
October 01, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Jane Njoki Kimemia v Lol Daiga Meat Supplies Limited [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal findings and implications for future jurisprudence.

Case Brief: Jane Njoki Kimemia v Lol Daiga Meat Supplies Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Jane Njoki Kimemia v. Lol Daiga Meat Supplies Limited
- Case Number: ELC Case No. 93 of 2019 (O.S)
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Thika
- Date Delivered: October 1, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): L. Gacheru
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue for resolution by the court was whether the Plaintiff, Jane Njoki Kimemia, was entitled to claim ownership of the parcel of land (Title Number Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/175) through adverse possession, despite the Defendant's title to the land.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff claimed to have been in adverse possession of the disputed land for over twelve years. The land was originally registered in the name of Francis Muroki Mwaura, who allegedly allowed the Plaintiff to take possession in the year 2000 to guard against land grabbing. The Plaintiff contended that she developed the land by constructing various facilities and that she had been living there peacefully and uninterruptedly. The Defendant, Lol Daiga Meat Supplies Limited, was incorporated in 2009, and the land was subsequently transferred to it. The Defendant did not respond to the summons and failed to appear in court.

4. Procedural History:
The Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons on May 21, 2019, seeking orders for adverse possession. The Defendant was served but did not enter an appearance. The court proceeded with the case based on written submissions from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's submissions emphasized her continuous occupation of the land for over 20 years and argued that the Defendant failed to present any evidence to counter her claims.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act, particularly Section 7, which stipulates that no action may be brought to recover land after twelve years from when the right of action accrued. Additionally, Section 38 outlines the process for registering a claim of adverse possession.
- Case Law: The court referenced several precedents, including *Wambugu v. Njuguna* (1983) KLR 172, which clarified that for a claim of adverse possession to succeed, the claimant must prove that the true owner has been dispossessed or has discontinued possession for the statutory period. The court also cited *Samuel Miki Waweru v. Jane Njeri Richu*, emphasizing that possession cannot be deemed adverse if it is with the permission of the owner.
- Application: The court found that the Plaintiff's possession from 2000 to 2009 was not adverse, as it was permitted by Mwaura. After the land was registered in the Defendant's name in 2010, the Plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was not valid as she had not occupied the land for the required twelve years without the owner's consent. The court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof necessary for her claim.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the Plaintiff, dismissing her claim for adverse possession, as it found that she had not established the necessary legal threshold. This decision underscored the importance of consent in claims of adverse possession and clarified the legal standards that must be met.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as the judgment was delivered without opposition from the Defendant.

8. Summary:
The court dismissed Jane Njoki Kimemia's claim for ownership of the land through adverse possession due to her initial possession being with the owner's consent and the failure to establish continuous, adverse possession for the requisite period. This case illustrates the complexities surrounding claims of adverse possession and reinforces the legal principles that govern such claims in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Jane-Njoki-Kimemia-v-Lol-Daiga-Meat-Supplies-Limited-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1287_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries