Rent Demands Do Not Guarantee Land Ownership, Court Says

The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling granting ownership of a Nairobi property to a long-term occupier under adverse possession, clarifying that only recovery of possession through re-entry or court action can stop time running.

On 12 June, Justices Daniel Musinga, Paul Lilan and Johnson Okello affirmed a High Court decision that awarded title to an individual who had occupied a property in Nairobi since 1987. The judges held that rent demands, notices to quit, or proceedings before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal do not interrupt the 12-year statutory period required for adverse possession. 

They said that only physical re-entry by the landowner or the filing of a court case aimed at recovering possession is sufficient to stop time from running. The court explained that other forms of correspondence or administrative action do not amount to a legal assertion of ownership capable of defeating an adverse possession claim.

The dispute arose after the registered owners appealed a High Court ruling in favour of the occupier. They argued that repeated rent demands and recovery efforts showed continuous assertion of ownership rights. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding that the occupier’s open, exclusive and uninterrupted possession for more than two decades met the legal threshold under the Limitation of Actions framework.

The ruling reinforces the legal position that long-term occupation, where it is continuous and without permission from the owner, may mature into ownership if the statutory period is met. It also places emphasis on the need for landowners to take prompt legal steps if they intend to protect their property rights.

President William Ruto recently announced plans to issue more than 200,000 title deeds in the Coast region to address long-standing disputes involving informal settlers and absentee landlords. Separately, residents of Marurui in Kasarani have staged protests over alleged land grabbing.