Bahati Temo & 6 others v Swafiya Abdalla & another [2018] KEELC 3342 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court confirmed judgment creditors can execute within twelve years of judgment, and adopted a government valuer's figures where the other side filed no competing valuation.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment sought to be executed was statute-barred
The application was filed within twelve years of the judgment, so Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act does not apply
The judgment was delivered on 12th November 2002 and the Notice of Motion was filed on 11th November 2011, one day short of twelve years. Since execution proceedings were commenced before expiry of the twelve-year period, the limitation defence fails. Further, the orders of 27th November 2013 granted by Mukunya J had not been set aside and remained in force.
What amount of compensation should be set for the plaintiffs' structures
The court adopted the amounts in the valuation report filed on 28th August 2014, since the plaintiffs failed to file any valuation report of their own despite being given the opportunity
Only one valuation report was on file, prepared by the District Valuer pursuant to the orders of 27th November 2013. The plaintiffs were given an opportunity to engage their own valuer but filed none. The court therefore adopted the government valuer's figures as reasonable compensation, excluding the 7th plaintiff who had no structure.
Legal principles established
#- Time for execution under Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act runs from the date of judgment; where an execution application is filed within twelve years of judgment, the judgment is not time-barred
- A notice of withdrawal of suit filed after the suit has been determined is of no effect
Court orders
#- 1.Application granted in terms of prayer 2, adopting the figures in the valuation report dated 28th August 2014 as the reasonable compensation payable to plaintiffs who had structures when the suit was ongoing
- 2.Prayer 5 granted (police assistance/enforcement against resistance to the execution process)
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 34, 51 and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bahati Temo & 6 others v Swafiya Abdalla & another [2018] KEELC 3342 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated (Notice of Motion dated 9th November 2011 in a suit determined on 12th November 2002). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3342/eng@2018-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.