Gatuha & 2 others v Njoroge & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal reinstated a land suit struck out because the judge decided a limitation issue without hearing the parties first.
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 trial court erred in raising and determining the question of limitation suo motu without hearing the parties
- 2.Whether the trial court's failure to hear the parties on the limitation issue denied the appellants a fair hearing
Key legal issues
#Whether a court may raise and determine limitation suo motu without hearing the parties
The court had inherent power to raise the issue of limitation suo motu, but was duty-bound to hear the parties on it; failure to do so denied the appellants a fair hearing on a dispositive issue.
The Court surveyed its own and High Court jurisprudence, including Nakumatt, Prexx Ventures and Vickers Security, establishing that while an issue of law or jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even by the court on its own motion, the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) requires that parties be given an opportunity to address the issue before determination. None of the parties had pleaded limitation, and the respondents, who benefited from the striking out, had not raised it.
Circumstances in which a court may determine an unpleaded issue
A court may base relief on an unpleaded issue only where the conditions set out in Njurukani v Barasa are met, including that the issue was litigated in evidence and no prejudice results.
The Court adopted the seven conditions in Njurukani: the issue must be germane in the evidence, exhaustively addressed by the parties, no useful purpose served by fresh litigation, substantive justice must compel relief, the relief must be incidental to pleaded matters, the omission must not be in bad faith, and neither party must suffer objective prejudice. None of these conditions were met here because the limitation issue was never litigated.
Legal principles established
#- A court may raise an issue of law, including limitation, suo motu, but must accord the parties an opportunity to be heard on it before determining it.
- Determining a dispositive issue without hearing the parties violates the non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) and causes objective prejudice.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Decision of the trial court dated 10th December 2020 striking out the appellants' suit set aside
- 3.Murang'a ELC Case No. 305 of 2017 reinstated
- 4.Matter placed before the Environment and Land Court in Murang'a for directions before any judge other than Kemei J.
- 5.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Murang'a
- ELC Case No. 305 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Act over the Environment and Land Court
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.
the court in the matter before us had the inherent power to raise an issue of law, the issue of limitation, suo motu. It, however, had a responsibility to accord the parties before it an opportunity to be heard on the issue.
The right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1), as this Court underscored in Vickers, cannot be derogated from, and the failure to hear the parties clearly resulted in objective prejudice to the appellants.
We set aside the decision of the trial court dated 10th December 2020 striking out the appellants’ suit, Murang’a ELC Case No. 305 of 2017, which, for the avoidance of doubt, we hereby reinstate.
The matter shall be placed before the Environment and Land Court in Murang’a for directions with respect to the hearing and determination thereof before any judge of the court other than Kemei J.
As this appeal arose from an error of law on the part of the trial court, we make no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatuha & 2 others v Njoroge & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal E026 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1977/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.