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 judgment (Kajiado ELC suit; Preliminary Objection dated 1st July 2020)· [2021] KEELC 3053 (KLR)

George Chege Ndungu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Charles Ndungu Kinuthia – Deceased) v Naiponi Ene Sempeke Alias Naiponi Ene Kampei [2021] KEELC 3053 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 May 2021
1,146 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kajiado Environment and Land Court ruled a 12-year land-limitation objection needed facts tested at a full hearing, so the suit proceeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 1st July 2020 on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction, that the suit was scandalous and vexatious, that it was time barred having been filed thirty-one years after the cause of action arose, that the suit land Kajiado/Ol Choro Onyore/2342 had been subdivided, and that the Plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Plaintiff opposed via Grounds of Opposition, contending that the dispute had previously been determined in his favour by the Kajiado District Land Disputes Tribunal, that the tribunal's decision was quashed in Machakos Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 243 of 2010, and that time ran from that determination. The objection was canvassed by written submissions; the Plaintiff filed none. Framing the sole issue as whether the suit was statute barred, the court applied Mukhisa Biscuit and IEBC v Jane Cheperenger on the nature of preliminary objections. It noted that the defendant's husband died in 1992, that no date for the grant of letters of administration was given, that the plaintiff (Charles Ndungu Kinuthia) also died before transfer, and that tribunal and judicial review proceedings intervened. Since no party may deal with a deceased's estate before an administrator is appointed and time stops running when a matter is filed in court, the limitation question required facts to be ascertained and was premature. The court also found jurisdiction under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The preliminary objection was disallowed, the suit directed to full hearing, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is statute barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

The objection was premature; factual gaps require ascertainment, so the limitation question cannot be decided as a preliminary objection.

Reasoning

Section 7 bars actions to recover land after twelve years. However, the defendant's husband died in 1992, no administrator's appointment date was shown, the plaintiff himself died before transfer, and proceedings before the Land Disputes Tribunal and the Machakos judicial review intervened. Time stops running when a matter is filed in court and while a deceased's estate lacks a representative. These factual questions cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection.

p. 2
02

Whether the court has jurisdiction over the suit

Holding

The court has jurisdiction under section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act because the prayers revolve around a claim for land.

Reasoning

The plaintiff seeks a declaration compelling the defendant to transfer ten acres to be excised from KJD/Olchoro Onyore/2342. Such a claim falls squarely within the jurisdiction conferred by section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, so the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction fails.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if the exercise of judicial discretion is sought.
  • No party is allowed to deal with a deceased person's estate until an administrator is appointed.
  • Time stops running when a matter is filed in court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 1st July 2020 is disallowed
  2. 2.The matter to proceed to full hearing
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Actsection 7
  • Law of Succession Actnot specified
  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 13

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturers Ltd. vs. West End Distributors Ltd.
    [1969] E.A. 696
  • Kennedy Mureithi & Another V Peterson Karimi Gacewa
    (2016) eKLR
  • J P Machira t/a Machira & Company Advocates V Wangethi Mwangi & another
    (1998) eKLR
  • Jones M. Musau & Another V Kenya Hospital Association & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel ''Lillian S'' V Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1998) eKLR
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission V Jane Cheperenger & 2 Others
    Civil Application No. 36 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "George Chege Ndungu (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Charles Ndungu Kinuthia – Deceased) v Naiponi Ene Sempeke Alias Naiponi Ene Kampei [2021] KEELC 3053 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (Kajiado ELC suit; Preliminary Objection dated 1st July 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3053/eng@2021-05-27

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