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 ( Notice of Motion dated 12th July, 2023)· [2024] KEELC 5081 (KLR)

Ngeno (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Akinyi Kikwai) v Chepkwomy (Suing Through Patrick K. Chepkwony) & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 83 of 2013) [2024] KEELC 5081 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 July 2024
4,513 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled you cannot enforce a court decree on land more than 12 years after winning it — waiting decades loses your rights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Decree Holder/Applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha by Notice of Motion dated 12th July 2023 seeking an eviction order against the Respondents and a permanent injunction restraining them from dealing with land comprised in Kericho/Getarwet/210, later subdivided into Kericho/Getarwet/702, 703, 726 and 727, which he asserted formed part of the estate of Elizabeth Akinyi Kikwai (Deceased). He alleged fraudulent subdivision and transfer of the land contrary to orders in Kericho Resident Magistrate's Court Misc. App. No. 50 of 1984, and intermeddling under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act. The Respondents opposed, contending that the 1984 dispute had been decided by a ruling of 30th October 1985 allotting 3 acres to Ruth Cheptonui Kikwai and the balance to Henry K. Langat; that subsequent suits, including Kericho HCCC No. 40 of 1998, were res judicata; that third-party purchasers had long occupied and developed the land; and that the Applicant lacked capacity and had not met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold. The court, adopting Justice J. Onyango's 2017 summary of the litigation history, held that the application sought to enforce a 1984/1988 decree and was governed by Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act, which bars actions upon a judgment after twelve years. Relying on M'ikiara M'rinkanya and Isaac Olang Solongo, the court found the claim statute-barred after 35 to 39 years and dismissed the application dated 12th July 2023 with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant's application to execute a 1984/1988 decree by way of eviction and injunction was statute-barred

Holding

Yes; execution proceedings to recover land constitute an 'action' upon a judgment under Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act and having been brought 35-39 years after the decree were time-barred

Reasoning

The court adopted the summary of Justice J. Onyango's ruling of 10th October 2017 and held that the application sought to effect a decree from Kericho RM Misc. App. No. 50 of 1984, published in Gazette Notice No. 186 of 22nd January 1988. Relying on M'ikiara M'rinkanya and Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the court found execution sought after 35 or 39 years extinguished the decree holder's rights.

p. 8
02

Whether the Applicant met the threshold for temporary injunction and eviction orders

Holding

No; the application failed to meet the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions and was dismissed

Reasoning

The Respondents argued, and the court effectively accepted in dismissing the motion, that the dispute over Kericho/Getarwet/210 had been determined in Misc. Application No. 50 of 1984, subsequent suits were res judicata, and third-party purchasers had long been in possession. The Applicant's non-disclosure of the ruling date further undermined his claim.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • An action may not be brought upon a judgment after twelve years from the date the judgment was delivered
  • A decree holder who sleeps on a decree for over 12 years is statute-barred from executing it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 12th July, 2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51; Order 8 Rule 5(2); Order 40(1)(a) and (b); Order 3 Rule 1; Order 24 Rule 10
  • Land ActNot specified
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 22, 40, 43, 50
  • Law of Succession ActSection 45
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 4(4), 7, 17

Cases cited (9)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited
    (1973) EA 358
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 others
    (2003) KLR
  • Kalya Soi Farmers' Cooperative Society v Paul Kirui & Another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Paul Gitonga v Gathuthis Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Lynette Nasimiyu Wafula v David Mwangi & 4 others
    [2022] eKLR
  • Isaac Olang Solongo v Gladys Nanjekho Makokha (Being the administrator of the Estate Antonina Makokha (Deceased) & another
    [2021] eKLR
  • M'ikiara M'rinkanya & Another vs Gilbert Kabeere M'mbijiwe
    [2007] eKLR
  • Lougher v Donovan
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, the Land Act, 2012 and Articles 22, 40 and 43 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngeno (Suing on Behalf of the Estate of Elizabeth Akinyi Kikwai) v Chepkwomy (Suing Through Patrick K. Chepkwony) & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 83 of 2013) [2024] KEELC 5081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment ( Notice of Motion dated 12th July, 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5081/eng@2024-07-04

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