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 5459 (KLR)

Ngimu Farm Limited v Kariuki & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5459 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 July 2024
2,127 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Defendant/Objector filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 15th December 2022 against the Plaintiff's Plaint dated 28th November 2022, which sought declarations that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of land parcels Makuyu/Kimorori/1599, 1601, 1625, 1629 and 1632, cancellation of transfers to the Defendants on grounds of fraud, rectification of the register, a permanent injunction and general damages. The Objector argued mis-joinder of the 1st to 5th Defendants for lack of a common question of law or fact, prejudice to his defence, that the annexed searches did not show the Plaintiff's ownership, and that a claim founded on fraud was time-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act given his 2001 registration. The Plaintiff, relying principally on Mukisa Biscuits, countered that the objection did not raise pure points of law, that fraud was particularised in the Plaint, and that under Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act time runs from discovery of the fraud, which occurred on 26th October 2022 upon an official search. The court, L. Gacheru J, framed three issues: mis-joinder, limitation, and whether the Objector was entitled to the orders sought. Applying Werrot, Kizito Lubano, Zephir Holdings and Lucy Nungari Ngigi, the court held the Defendants were properly joined as the subject-matter was the same. On limitation, the court accepted that the Plaintiff pleaded discovery of the fraud in 2022, the year of filing, and held the suit was not statute-barred. The Preliminary Objection was dismissed in its entirety, with costs to abide the outcome of the suit, and the suit was directed to proceed to determination on merit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there is a mis-joinder of the Defendants

Holding

The Defendants were properly joined; the subject-matter of the suit is the same as between them, and mis-joinder cannot defeat a suit

Reasoning

Applying the tests in Werrot & Company Ltd and Zephir Holdings, the court noted that the Plaintiff's claim concerns several parcels of land previously belonging to it which were transferred to the 1st to 5th Defendants. Since the subject-matter was common and a suit cannot be defeated for mis-joinder, the Defendants were not wrongfully joined. The claims concern the same parcels and the relief sought binds all Defendants.

p. 5
02

Whether the Plaintiff's suit is statute-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

The suit is not statute-barred because the Plaintiff pleaded discovery of the fraud in 2022, the same year the suit was filed

Reasoning

The 1st Defendant argued the claim, founded on fraud, was time-barred having been registered in 2001, some 20 years before the suit. The Plaintiff invoked Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act, submitting the cause of action accrues on discovery of fraud, which occurred on 26th October 2022 after an official search. The court accepted the pleaded discovery date and held the limitation period had not run.

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct
  • A suit cannot be defeated for mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties where the court can effectually adjudicate on the questions involved
  • Where fraud is alleged to have been discovered in the same year the suit is filed, the suit is not statute-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The instant Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 15th December, 2022 is dismissed entirely
  2. 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the suit
  3. 3.The suit to be determined on merit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1, Rule 3
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rules 1 and 2
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4(2)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 26
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 27(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    [1969] EA 696
  • Henry Wanyama Khaemba v Standard Chartered Bank Ltd & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • George Kamau Kimani & 4 others v County Government of Trans Nzoia & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation
    Kisumu HCCC No.22 of 1999
  • United Insurance Co. Ltd v Scholastica A. Odera
    Kisumu HCCC No.6 of 2005
  • Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) eKLR
  • Werrot and Company Ltd & Others v Andrew Douglas Gregory & Others
    [1998] eKLR
  • Kizito M. Lubano v KEMRI Board of Management & 8 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Zephir Holdings Ltd v Mimosa Plantations Ltd, Jeremiah Maztagaro & Ezekiel Misango Mutisya
    [2014] eKLR
  • Lucy Nungari Ngigi & 128 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & Another
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (suit concerning land parcels Makuyu/Kimorori/1599, 1601, 1625, 1629 and 1632)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngimu Farm Limited v Kariuki & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5459/eng@2024-07-25

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