Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case 777 of 2012· [2023] KEELC 16502 (KLR)

Kalenjin Auto Hardware Limited v Songok & 2 others

Environment and Land Court
23 March 2023
EOE. O. Obaga
243 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret dismissed a claim that a land dispute was too old to sue over, allowing the buyer's case to proceed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (E. O. Obaga, J) on a notice of preliminary objection raised by the 1st Defendant, John K Songok, on the ground that the suit filed by Kalenjin Auto Hardware Limited was statute barred. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants (Clementina Chebet Songok and Sosiani Builders Limited) did not feature in the objection. The court directed the parties to file written submissions; the 1st Defendant filed on November 14, 2022 and the Plaintiff on November 17, 2022. Considering the submissions, the court noted that the agreement between the parties was entered into on November 3, 2011, but that according to the pleadings the purchase price was paid on various dates until 2003. On that basis the court held that the suit was not statute barred and dismissed the preliminary objection, awarding costs to the Plaintiff. The ruling is extremely brief: it does not identify the applicable limitation statute or period, nor analyse the cause of action, and it contains an unexplained chronological inconsistency between the 2011 agreement date and payments said to have been made until 2003. The disposition was simply 'It is so ordered.'

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is statute barred

Holding

The preliminary objection was dismissed because the pleadings showed payments continued until 2003, after the 2011 agreement date relied on by the objector.

Reasoning

The court considered the parties' written submissions and the pleadings. The 1st Defendant anchored the objection on the agreement date of November 3, 2011, but the pleadings showed the purchase price was paid on various dates until 2003, so limitation was not established on the pleaded facts.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the purchase price was paid on various dates extending beyond the date relied on for limitation, the suit cannot be held statute barred on a preliminary objection.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Defendant's preliminary objection is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the Plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly stated in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kalenjin Auto Hardware Limited v Songok & 2 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 777 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/16502/eng@2023-03-23

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