Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 3441 (KLR)

John Lemiso Ole Lekakeny v David Kipkurui Kandie [2020] KEELC 3441 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2020
4,107 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan landowner's trust claim survived early dismissal attempts, and status quo orders now protect the property pending full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court dealt with three interlocutory matters: the plaintiff's notice of motion dated 1st July 2019 seeking a temporary injunction over MOMBASA MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK XXVI/212; the defendant's notice of motion dated 13th August 2019 seeking to strike out the plaintiff's suit and the status quo orders; and the defendant's preliminary objection that the suit, founded on a sale agreement executed on 7th January 2010, was statute barred under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act. The plaintiff, who sold and transferred the property to the defendant for Kshs.10 million, alleged only Kshs.300,000 was paid and pleaded that the defendant holds the property in trust, contending the cause of action accrued on 15th February 2019 when judgment was delivered in Mombasa ELC Case No. 22 of 2012. The defendant asserted the full purchase price was paid and that the plaintiff had testified to the sale in the earlier case. Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the court held the limitation question required investigation of when the cause of action arose and was therefore not a pure point of law, dismissing the preliminary objection. Applying Hatimy, Yaya Limited and D.T. Dobie, the court found triable issues and dismissed the striking-out motion. Applying Giella, Mrao and Suleiman, the court allowed the plaintiff's motion in terms of prayer (c), maintaining the status quo. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Judgment delivered at Mombasa on 30th January 2020 by C.K. Yano, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit founded on a 2010 sale agreement is time barred under Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

The preliminary objection was dismissed because when the cause of action accrued is a factual question unfit for determination at a preliminary stage

Reasoning

The plaintiff pleaded trust and asserted the cause of action accrued on 15th February 2019 upon judgment in Mombasa ELC Case No. 22 of 2012, while the defendant contended limitation ran from execution of the agreement on 7th January 2010. The court held the parties are at variance on when the cause of action arose, that this is a matter of fact to be proved at trial, and that investigating it would convert the objection into a mini-trial, disqualifying it as a preliminary objection.

p. 3
02

Whether the plaintiff's suit should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process

Holding

The defendant's striking-out motion was dismissed as the plaint raises triable issues

Reasoning

Applying Hatimy, Yaya Limited and D.T. Dobie, the court reiterated that a plaintiff is entitled to pursue a claim however improbable its chances unless the defendant demonstrates shortly and conclusively that it is bound to fail. The plaint pleads that the defendant holds the property in trust, paid only Kshs.300,000 of the purchase price, and seeks declarations and revocation of the lease and sale agreement, raising triable issues deserving a full trial.

p. 4
03

Whether the plaintiff satisfied the principles for a temporary injunction

Holding

The plaintiff's motion dated 1st July 2019 was allowed in terms of prayer (c), maintaining the status quo

Reasoning

The court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, and adopted Suleiman v Amboseli Resort to hold the court may consider the overriding objective and choose the lower risk of injustice. Since the plaintiff's concern was alienation or disposal of the suit property, orders safeguarding and maintaining the status quo until the suit was determined were fair and appropriate.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection that requires investigation of facts is not a pure point of law and must fail
  • Striking out pleadings is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly, only in the clearest of cases
  • At the interlocutory stage the court may go beyond the Giella principles and opt for the lower risk of injustice by maintaining the status quo

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2019 is allowed in terms of prayers (c) thereof
  2. 2.The notice of motion dated 23rd August 2019 is dismissed
  3. 3.The preliminary objection dated 23rd August 2019 is dismissed
  4. 4.Each party to bear his own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 4(1)(a)
  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 20(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d); Order 15(1)(b) and (d) as cited
  • Law Society Conditions of Sale (1989 Edition)Condition 6(1)

Cases cited (16)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Co. Ltd –v- West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • Bartholomew Mwanyangu & Others –v- Florence Dean Karimi
    (2018) eKLR
  • Diana Katumbi Kiio –v- Reuben Musyoka Muli
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kivanga Estate Limited –v- National Bank of Kenya
    (2017) eKLR
  • Gurdev Singh Birdi & Marinder Singh Ghatora –v Abubakar Madhubuti
  • Thrift Homes Ltd –v- Kenya Investment Ltd
    (2015) eKLR
  • Lamare –v- Dixon
    1873 L.R. 6 HL 414
  • Alghussein Establishment –v- Eton College
    (1991) 1 ALL ER PP 667
  • Manzoor –v- Baram
    (2003) 2 EA 580
  • Mohamed Mohammed Hatimy -V- Lameck Oluoch t/a Lamathe Hygienic Foods
    Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2018
  • Yaya Limited –v- Trade Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
    (2000) eKLR
  • D. T Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd –v- Muchina
    (1982) KLR
  • Giella –v- Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd – v – First American Bank of Kenya
    (2003) KLR 125
  • Suleiman –v – Amboseli Resort Ltd
    (2004) KLR 589
  • Films Rover International
    (1986) 3 ALL ER 772
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Lemiso Ole Lekakeny v David Kipkurui Kandie [2020] KEELC 3441 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3441/eng@2020-01-30

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