The Court of Appeal has issued a ruling that clarifies the law on adverse possession, affirming the rights of long-term informal land occupants.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

A judgement delivered on June 12 by Justices Daniel Musinga, Paul Lilan and Johnson Okello  cautions landowners that demands for rent, correspondence to an occupier or proceedings before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) do not stop the running of time allowing squatters to claim possession.

In addition, the Court explained that letters, notices to quit or rent claims alone are insufficient in law to defeat an ongoing claim for adverse possession once the 12-year statutory period continues to run uninterrupted.

“The BPRT case instituted by the 5th defendant to recover rent is not a suit to regain possession and would therefore be ineffective to stop the running of time. The correspondences annexed by the 5th defendant in his replying affidavit as “MA 4” could also not stop time from running in favour of the applicant in light of the decision in the case that giving notice to quit cannot be effective assertion of right for purposes of stopping the running of time under the Limitation of Actions Act,” the judgement read.

📌 What You Need to Know

Further, the judges held that to interrupt the period, a landowner must either physically re-enter the property or file a court action specifically seeking possession of the land.

“The assertion of right must involve either the regaining of entry to the land by the owner or the commencement of a suit whose substance is to regain possession. Any other suit by the owners that is not for the purpose of regaining possession of the property would be ineffective in stopping the running of time,” the judgment stated.

The decision arose from a dispute over a parcel of land in Nairobi where an occupier had been in possession since 1987 and later sought ownership through adverse possession after more than two decades of occupation.

The High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the occupier, finding that the requirements for adverse possession had been met, including proof of open, continuous, exclusive and hostile occupation of the property for more than 12 years.

The registered owners appealed that decision, arguing that they had consistently demanded rent, issued notices and initiated proceedings before the rent tribunal, which they said amounted to an assertion of ownership rights.

They also contended that the occupier’s entry into the property was not lawful and that the continuous demands for rent and attempts to recover possession showed that the occupation was not uninterrupted.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke