Jared Kiprotich Biwott & another v Jonathan Kibe [2020]e KLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
M. A. Odeny
Judgment Date
August 05, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the Jared Kiprotich Biwott & Another v Jonathan Kibe [2020] e KLR case summary, highlighting key findings and legal implications for easy understanding.

Case Brief: Jared Kiprotich Biwott & another v Jonathan Kibe [2020]e KLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Jared Kiprotich Biwott & Stephen Cheruiyot v. Jonathan Kibe
- Case Number: E&L Case No. 348 of 2014, consolidated with E&L Suit No. 398 of 2017 (O.S)
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: August 5, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): M. A. Odeny
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for resolution by the court include:
- Whether the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of Parcel Number L.R.No.498/923.
- Whether the defendant has established a claim of adverse possession over the said land.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Jared Kiprotich Biwott and Stephen Cheruiyot, filed a suit against the defendant, Jonathan Kibe, claiming that he is a trespasser on their land, L.R.No.498/923. The plaintiffs sought eviction, a permanent injunction against the defendant, and costs of the suit. The defendant counterclaimed, asserting that he has occupied the land since 1969 and has acquired rights through adverse possession. The plaintiffs were allocated the land in 1993 and received a leasehold title in 1998. The defendant moved to the land after a government directive in 2013, which led to the plaintiffs filing this suit.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of the plaint in November 2014. The defendant filed a statement of defense and a counterclaim in December 2014. The second suit, E&L Suit No. 398 of 2017, was initiated by the defendant seeking to establish his claim of adverse possession and was consolidated with the first case. Throughout the proceedings, both parties presented testimonies and evidence supporting their claims regarding ownership and possession of the land.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered several statutes, primarily the Land Registration Act and the Limitation of Actions Act. Section 24(1) of the Land Registration Act states that registration confers absolute ownership, while Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act outlines the conditions under which a claim for adverse possession can be made.
- Case Law: The court cited *Gabriel Mbui v Mukindia Maranya* [1993] eKLR, which established that an intruder must have some semblance of title to claim adverse possession. The principles outlined in *Ravindranath Dahybhai Bhagat v Hamisi Herod* [2014] eKLR were also referenced, emphasizing the need for the true owner to have been dispossessed for the statutory period to run.
- Application: The court found that the plaintiffs were the registered owners of the land as per the title issued in 1998. The defendant's claim of adverse possession was not substantiated, as he failed to demonstrate continuous, open, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of 12 years. The defendant's occupation began after the plaintiffs' title was issued, which meant the statutory period for adverse possession had not commenced.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the defendant a trespasser on L.R.No.498/923, ordering his eviction within 45 days, and issuing a permanent injunction against any further interference with the land. The court affirmed the plaintiffs' ownership rights, emphasizing the protection of registered titles under Kenyan law.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The court's ruling reinforced the principles of land ownership and adverse possession under Kenyan law. The plaintiffs were recognized as the legitimate owners of the land, while the defendant's claim of adverse possession was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of uninterrupted possession. This case highlights the importance of legal title in land disputes and the stringent requirements for establishing claims of adverse possession.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Jared-Kiprotich-Biwott--another-v-Jonathan-Kibe-[2020]e-KLR-Case-Summary_2034_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries