The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling awarding a Nairobi property to businessman Hardev Kalsi Singh under the doctrine of adverse possession, bringing to an end a long-running dispute over ownership of the land.
In a judgment delivered on June 12, 2026, a three-judge bench comprising Court of Appeal President Justice Daniel Musinga, Justice Paul Lilan, and Justice Dr. Joel Okello dismissed an appeal filed by Mohammed Azhar, one of the registered owners of the property. The dispute concerned Land on Nyuki Close in Nairobi. Court records showed that Singh took possession of the property in 1987 and remained there continuously for more than two decades before the registered owners attempted to reclaim it.
Azhar argued that Singh did not qualify for ownership through adverse possession because his occupation was allegedly unlawful and had been challenged through rent demands and proceedings before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. He maintained that these actions interrupted the continuous occupation required by law.
However, the appellate court agreed with the findings of the Environment and Land Court, holding that Singh had occupied the property openly, exclusively, continuously, and without the consent of the registered owners for a period exceeding the 12 years required by the Limitation of Actions Act.
The judges noted that Singh’s possession of the property was evident and uninterrupted for more than the statutory period, thereby extinguishing the owners’ rights to recover the land. The court further found that the rent demands and tribunal proceedings cited by Azhar did not amount to a legal recovery of possession and therefore did not stop time from running for purposes of adverse possession.
According to the judgment, the registered proprietors only made a significant attempt to enforce their ownership rights approximately 25 years after Singh entered the property. By then, the court held, Singh’s claim had already matured into a legally enforceable right.
The bench also rejected submissions that the property’s ownership as a tenancy in common prevented an adverse possession claim against all co-owners. The judges ruled that a claimant may acquire title against multiple proprietors where occupation remains adverse to their interests and continues uninterrupted for the prescribed period.
Reaffirming the principles governing adverse possession, the court stated that a claimant must demonstrate actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile occupation of land for at least 12 years without the owner’s permission.
In dismissing the appeal, the judges observed that the proprietors had failed to act within the time allowed by law, effectively losing their right to reclaim the property.
“Equity cannot come to the aid of the indolent appellant,” the court stated.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, leaving intact the orders transferring ownership of the property to Singh. The court directed that each party bear its own costs.
