Kamau & another v Mjad Investments Limited & 3 others (Civil Appeal E106 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1824 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that land claims filed more than twelve years after compulsory acquisition are permanently time-barred and cannot be heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the suit was time barred and, if so, whether the learned Judge erred in striking it out for being filed outside the limitation period
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellants' suit was barred by Sections 7 and 9 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Yes. The cause of action accrued upon completion of the compulsory acquisition in 1976, so any claim had to be brought by 1989; the 2013 suit was statute barred.
The court found that Gazette Notices 737 and 738 of 12th March 1976 effected a compulsory acquisition of the suit land, compensation was assessed and paid, and the deceased's interest was extinguished. Section 7 bars an action to recover land after twelve years from accrual. The fact that the original title was never cancelled does not negate the acquisition, and any subsequent subdivision or allocation was of no concern to the deceased or his successors.
Whether limitation is a jurisdictional issue requiring the court to down its tools
Yes. Once the judge found the suit was filed outside the limitation period, he was divested of jurisdiction and was right to strike out the suit.
Relying on the doctrine that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and that a court without jurisdiction is a nullity ab initio, the court held that limitation being jurisdictional, the trial judge had no option but to down his tools. Proceeding to hear the suit on its merits would have been an arrogation of jurisdiction he did not possess.
Whether the compulsory acquisition was validly completed and compensation paid
Yes. The Gazette Notices of intention and inquiry, the schedule listing the deceased for compensation, and the absence of any cancellation or objection established the acquisition.
The court traced the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, found the Gazette Notices compliant, noted the deceased was listed for compensation of Kshs.93,553.70 plus Kshs.17,135, and rejected the argument that the award was incomplete. The absence of the Bank pursuing its charge for over 20 years persuaded the court the compensation offset the loan.
Legal principles established
#- A suit to recover land filed more than twelve years after the right of action accrued is statute barred, and the issue of limitation goes to jurisdiction so that a court must down its tools once it finds the suit is out of time.
- Once land is compulsorily acquired and the acquisition process is completed, the previous owner's interest is extinguished notwithstanding that the original title was never cancelled.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- 2.The ruling of the learned Judge (Yano, J.) dated and delivered on 14th June 2021 is upheld
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Mombasa
- ELC Case No. 161 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal under rule 31(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the ruling of 14th June 2021 and reinstatement of the appellants' amended plaint
The suit was statute barred and the trial judge, being divested of jurisdiction, rightly struck it out
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the end, we find and hold that this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. We accordingly uphold the ruling of the learned Judge (Yano, J.) dated and delivered on 14th June 2021.
The issue of a suit being statute barred is a jurisdictional issue.
the fact that the original title was not cancelled does not negate the compulsory acquisition.
The deceased ultimately ceased to have any proprietary interest in the suit land.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently records the memorandum of appeal as citing Order 2 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules while the submissions discuss Order 2 rule 15(a)-(d), apparently conflating the striking-out provisions.
The judgment variously describes the trial judge's ruling as one under a Notice of Motion and a Preliminary Objection raising the same limitation issue, and the two applications are not clearly separated in the disposition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau & another v Mjad Investments Limited & 3 others (Civil Appeal E106 of 2021) [2025] KECA 1824 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal (Mombasa) arising from Mombasa ELC Case No. 161 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1824/eng@2025-11-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.