Not stated in judgment (Plaintiffs v 1st & 2nd Defendants & Others)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kericho ruled that a claim that a land case is too old must be decided at trial with evidence, not thrown out early.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs' suit is time barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and whether that can be determined as a preliminary objection
The preliminary objection failed; limitation cannot be resolved summarily as a preliminary objection because it requires evidence and determination at trial.
The court noted that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, unblurred by contested facts. The limitation question turned on when the cause of action accrued, which depends on whether the claim is founded on the 1984 sale agreement, on trust, or on the alleged fraud of 4th May 2021 — factual matters requiring evidence. Given the sensitive nature of land disputes, it would be absurd to dismiss such a suit summarily on one party's assertion of delay.
Legal principles established
#- The defence of limitation of time is a matter for determination at the trial on evidence, and cannot be disposed of by way of a preliminary objection.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st and 2nd Defendants' Preliminary Objection dated 28th September, 2023 is dismissed
- 2.The costs of the preliminary objection shall abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Not stated in judgment (Plaintiffs v 1st & 2nd Defendants & Others)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4795/eng@2024-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.