Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case E117 of 2023· [2023] KEELC 21321 (KLR)

Gerrit v Terakate Properties Limited

Environment and Land Court
2 November 2023
1,070 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court revived a land buyer's case after finding its earlier ruling overlooked a key completion notice letter, resetting when the limitation clock started.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Jordens Gerrit, applied by notice of motion dated 6th July 2023 (amended 1st August 2023) seeking review of the court's ruling of 16th June 2023, which had found his suit for specific performance of sale agreements dated 8th August 2006 and 27th August 2007 over Plots 316 and 317 excised from LR No. 11329 to be time barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The application was unopposed; the defendant was served but filed no response or submissions. The sole issue framed was whether the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient reason for review. The court examined a letter dated 30th January 2023, received by the defendant's counsel on 31st January 2023, demanding completion documents and titles within 21 days, and held that it sufficed as a Completion Notice, so time began to run upon the defendant's breach in February 2023. Relying on Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the authorities of Michael Mungai v Ford Kenya and Ngororo v Ndutha on 'sufficient reason', the court found that its earlier ruling had not considered that letter, which constituted sufficient reason to review. The application was allowed: the orders of 16th June 2023 were set aside, the plaintiff's suit and the application dated 22nd March 2023 were reinstated for determination, and costs were made to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient reason for review of the ruling of 16th June 2023

Holding

Yes - the court had not considered the Completion Notice letter dated 30th January 2023 in its earlier ruling, which constitutes sufficient reason

Reasoning

The court scrutinised the letter dated 30th January 2023, received by the defendant's counsel on 31st January 2023, and found it sufficed as a Completion Notice. Because the earlier ruling of 16th June 2023 did not consider that letter, its omission amounted to sufficient reason under Order 45 Rule 1(1), justifying review and reinstatement of the suit and application.

p. 3
02

When time began to run for purposes of the limitation defence to specific performance

Holding

Time began to run when the Defendant breached the Completion Notice, sometime in February 2023

Reasoning

The letter of 30th January 2023 demanded completion documents and titles within 21 days, failing which the purchasers would exercise their rights. The court held this letter sufficed as a Completion Notice, so limitation ran from the breach in February 2023, meaning the suit filed in March 2023 was not time barred.

Legal principles established

#
  • Sufficient reason for review under Order 45 Rule 1(1) is deduced from the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and a matter not considered in the earlier decision may constitute sufficient reason

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders issued on 16th June 2023 are set aside
  2. 2.The plaintiff's suit and the application dated 22nd March 2023 are reinstated for determination
  3. 3.Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Michael Mungai v Ford Kenya Elections & Nominations Board & Others & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR

    Grounds of 'sufficient reason' for review under Order 45 Rule 1(1)

  • Ngororo V Ndutha & another
    [1994] KLR 402

    A non-party whose direct interest is affected by a judgment is entitled to apply for review

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gerrit v Terakate Properties Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E117 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21321/eng@2023-11-02

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