Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the extract (Amended Plaint dated 17th July 2019)· [2020] KEELC 2964 (KLR)

Kipngochoch Farm Co Limited v Obadiah K Kipkorir & 5 others [2020] KEELC 2964 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2020
2,686 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (J M Mutungi J) dated 30th April 2020 on a preliminary objection raised by the 1st to 4th defendants in a land suit brought by Kipngochoch Farm Company Limited. The plaintiff claimed ownership of land parcels Solai/Ndungiri Block 1/223 and 1/235, alleging that the 1st defendant had been in illegal occupation since 1985 and that the 2nd defendant fraudulently procured transfer of Block 1/235 to himself in 1992 following an allegedly forceful change of the company's leadership in 1984. The plaintiff sought declarations of ownership, revocation of the 2nd defendant's title, eviction, permanent injunction, mesne profits and damages. The defendants pleaded purchase under shareholder and director sanction, adverse possession by the 1st defendant, and limitation under Sections 4 and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22, and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred and that no leave under Section 27 had been sought. The court, applying the Mukisa Biscuit test, held that limitation is a pure point of law properly raised as a preliminary objection. However, because the plaintiff asserted it only discovered the alleged fraud after 2006 upon a change of directorship, the date limitation began to run was contested and was a matter of evidence for trial, following Justus Tureti Obara v Peter Koipeitai Nengisoi. The preliminary objection was accordingly dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuit threshold

Holding

The court held that the objection, being on limitation, was a pure point of law and properly raised as a preliminary objection.

Reasoning

The court recited the Mukisa Biscuit test, noting that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law requiring no ascertainment of facts and no exercise of discretion. It found that whether a suit is caught by the Limitation of Actions Act is a question of law determinable on the pleadings, so the objection qualified as a preliminary objection, even though its success depended on when limitation began to run.

p. 3
02

Whether the suit was statute-barred

Holding

The objection failed because the commencement date of the limitation period was contested and could only be established by evidence at trial.

Reasoning

The plaintiff asserted it only discovered the alleged fraud after 2006 upon a change of directorship, while the defendants contended the causes of action accrued between 1984 and 1993. If limitation ran from 1984/1993 the suit would be barred; if from discovery in 2006, the 2012 suit would be within time. Since when the plaintiff came to know of the fraud is a matter of evidence for trial, the preliminary objection was unsustainable.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection on limitation is a pure point of law that may properly be raised as such
  • Where an action is based on fraud, limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud, and when discovery occurred is a matter for trial

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 13th September 2019 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 4(2)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 27
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaProviso to Section 26(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Cherron (K) Ltd –vs- Harrison Charo Wa Shutu
    (2016) eKLR
  • Garon Onyacha -vs- The National Police Service Commission & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd -vs- West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • JSK -Vs- WKW
    (2019) eKLR
  • Justus Tureti Obara –Vs- Peter Koipeitai Nengisoi
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcels Solai/Ndungiri Block 1/223 and 1/235

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kipngochoch Farm Co Limited v Obadiah K Kipkorir & 5 others [2020] KEELC 2964 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the extract (Amended Plaint dated 17th July 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2964/eng@2020-04-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.