Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2024] KEELC 3576 (KLR)

Sang v Galaiya Properties Ltd & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E028 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 3576 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 April 2024
3,367 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court has confirmed that time-bar arguments cannot be used to throw out a land case early — such defences must wait for full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo J) on two preliminary objections: the 1st Defendant's dated 24th May, 2023 and the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants' dated 30th June, 2022, in a suit seeking a permanent injunction, cancellation of allegedly fraudulent entries and transfers over land known as LR 11964/4 (currently LR 11964/27, IR 174248), demolition of illegal structures and costs. The suit against the 2nd Defendant had been withdrawn with no order as to costs. Both objections contended that the court lacked jurisdiction because the suit is time-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act; the 3rd to 5th Defendants additionally raised lack of locus standi (the Plaintiff not being an administrator of the deceased's estate), non-compliance with Order 1 rules 8 and 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules on representative suits, limitation under the Public Authorities Limitation Act, and abuse of process. The Plaintiff and the 6th and 7th Defendants filed no submissions. Applying Oraro v Mbaja on the nature of preliminary objections, and adopting Sichuan Huashi Enterprises, Oruta v Nyamato and Divecon Ltd, the court held that limitation requires interrogation of evidence and cannot be resolved summarily as a preliminary objection. Both preliminary objections were accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. The substantive suit remains to be tried.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objections dated 24th May, 2023 and 30th June, 2022 have merit

Holding

Both preliminary objections lack merit and are dismissed

Reasoning

Both objections were premised on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction because the suit is time-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Relying on Sichuan Huashi Enterprises Corp. Limited v Micheal Misiko Muhindi, Oruta & Another v Nyamato and Divecon Ltd v Shirinkhanu S. Samani, the court held that limitation requires interrogation of evidence and cannot be resolved summarily at a preliminary stage. Because the objections rested on limitation, they necessarily failed.

p. 7
02

Whether limitation of time can be raised through a preliminary objection

Holding

No - it must be formulated as an issue at trial and decided on evidence

Reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning in Sichuan Huashi quoting Oruta v Nyamato and Divecon Ltd, where Gachuhi JA's words were quoted with approval that raising limitation as a preliminary issue to strike out a suit is not encouraged by the Limitation of Actions Act; the trial judge must decide limitation on evidence adduced at trial.

p. 7
03

What constitutes a proper preliminary objection

Holding

It must be a pure point of law assumed on the correctness of pleaded facts; it cannot rest on facts requiring proof

Reasoning

Applying Oraro v Mbaja, the court restated that a preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any facts have to be ascertained or proved through evidence.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Limitation of time is a matter for determination at the trial and cannot be dealt with as a preliminary objection
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, not blurred with factual details

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Defendant's preliminary objection dated 24th May, 2023 and the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants' preliminary objection dated 30th June, 2022 are dismissed with no orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 8
  • Law of Succession ActSection 82
  • Law of Succession ActSection 3
  • Public Authorities Limitation Act (Cap 39)Section 3(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 8
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 13

Cases cited (22)

  • Damaris Kondoro vs Gachanja Gitere & Another
    HCCC No 127 of 2004
  • Lilian Njeri Muranja & John Muranja Mahinda v Virginia Nyambura Ndiba & Kajiado County Government
    [2014] eKLR
  • Beatrice Wambui Kiarie & 9 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Bosire Ongero vs Royal Media Services
    [2015] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd vs West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • Trouistik Union International & another v Jane Mbeyu & another
    [1993] eKLR
  • Virginia Otieno v Joash Ougo and another
    [1988] 1 KAR 1048
  • Rajesh Pranjivan Chudasama v Sailesh Pranjivan Chudasama
    [2014] eKLR
  • Moses Lesiamon Ole Mpoe & Another v Commissioner of Lands & 4 others
    [2005] eKLR
  • George O Ochola v Ngina Kenyatta & another
    (2013) eKLR
  • Kahindi Katana & Another vs Cannon Assurance (K) Ltd
    (2013) eKLR
  • Dickson Ngige Ngugi v Consolidated Bank Ltd (Formerly Jimba Credit Corporation Limited & another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Gathoni vs Kenya Co-operative Cremires Ltd
    (1982) KLR 104
  • Rawal vs Rawal
    (1990) KLR 275
  • Lishamba v Spencon Company Ltd & Another
    (Environment & Land Case 594 of 2014) [2022] KEELC 131 (KLR)
  • Anaclet Kalia Musau v Attorney General & 2 others
    [2020] eKLR, Civil Appeal 111 of 2017
  • Haron Onyancha v National Police Service Commn & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Oraro vs Mbaja
    2005 1 KLR 141
  • Sichuan Huashi Enterprises Corp. Limited v Micheal Misiko Muhindi
    [2019] eKLR
  • Oruta & Another v Nyamato
    [1998] KLR 590
  • Divecon Ltd vs Shirinkhanu S. Samani
    Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sang v Galaiya Properties Ltd & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E028 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 3576 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3576/eng@2024-04-11

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