a. Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated her claim for adverse possession of the suit property
12.The court has considered the material and submissions on record on this issue. Whereas the Plaintiff submitted that she had demonstrated her claim for adverse possession of the suit property, the Defendants contended otherwise. The Defendants contended that there was no evidence of peaceful, exclusive and continuous occupation of the suit property for at least the minimum statutory period required by law.
13.The elements of adverse possession were summarized in the case of Kasuve –vs- Mwaani Investments Ltd & 4 Others  1KLR 184 as follows:
14.Similarly, in the case of Chevron (K) Limited –vs- Harrison Charo Wa Shutu  eKLR it was held, inter alia, that:
15.Although the Plaintiff placed great emphasis on the fact that she was the first one to be allocated the suit property and that the Defendants’ father was to be allocated alternative land elsewhere, the court shall confine its analysis and determination to the Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession because that was the basis of the suit. The court has noted that the Plaintiff did not produce a copy of the extract of title or copy the land register for the suit property to establish when the suit property was first registered and in whose name it was registered. The copy of the title deed for the suit property on record does not show the history of the land from inception. It only shows that the land register was opened in January, 2010 and a title deed issued to the Defendants’ father Kamau Njuguna Kebuki on 15.10.2010.
16.The court takes the view that time for purposes of a claim for adverse possession can only start running once the land in question has a known owner against whom time can run under the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap.22). The court is of the opinion that in the absence of evidence of earlier registration of the suit property, time could only start running with effect from January, 2010 when the land register was opened. The material on record shows that the Plaintiff’s suit for adverse possession was filed on 29.05.2020, that is, about 10 years and 3 months after registration of land. The court is of the opinion that the said period falls short of the statutory minimum of 12 years.
17.As a consequence, the court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish one critical element of adverse possession in terms of the minimum statutory period of 12 years. The court takes the view that the Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession was filed prematurely. In the event, the court finds and holds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove her claim for adverse possession to the required standard.
b. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit
18.It is obvious that all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff were dependent upon her demonstration of her claim for adverse possession. The court has already found that she has failed to prove her claim for adverse possession to the required standard. It would, therefore, follow that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint, or any one of them.