Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text provided (Multi Track plaint dated 23rd November 2021)· [2025] KEELC 163 (KLR)

Chepngetich v National Land Commission & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E006 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 163 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 January 2025
GOG.M.A ONG'ONDO
2,997 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner's Ksh. 16 million claim over a 1991 land excision was dismissed because she filed suit 30 years too late.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, registered owner of land parcel NANDI/KAMOBO/1399 (a subdivision of Nandi/Kamobo/92), sued for compensation of Kshs. 16,000,000 or alternative land, damages, boundary demarcation, eviction and injunction, alleging that in 1991 Kapsabet Municipality excised about half her land for use as the Kapsabet New Police Lines without compulsory acquisition procedure or compensation. The 1st defendant denied the claim and raised misjoinder; the 2nd defendant (County Government of Nandi) contended the dispute was a boundary complaint and the suit time barred; the 4th to 7th defendants asserted the land was a public utility, that any title was fraudulently acquired, and pleaded laches. At trial the plaintiff testified the excision occurred in 1991; municipal and state witnesses confirmed no gazettement for compulsory acquisition and that survey evidence showed her title acreage was intact and distinct from the police station parcel. The court framed four issues, foremost whether the suit was time barred. Applying Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, it found the claim, filed on 1st December 2021 over a 1991 excision, exceeded the twelve-year limitation period with no extension of time exhibited, and was therefore statute barred. Relying on Samuel Kamau Macharia, Bosire Ongero and Republic v Karisa Chengo, the court held that limitation goes to jurisdiction, so it could not determine the remaining issues. The suit against the 3rd defendant was marked withdrawn pursuant to Order 25 Rule 1, and the entire suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is time barred

Holding

The suit, filed on 1st December 2021 over an excision the plaintiff learnt of in 1991, exceeds the 12-year limitation period under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and is statute barred; no extension of time was exhibited

Reasoning

Section 7 bars actions to recover land after twelve years from when the right of action accrued. The plaintiff testified she learnt in 1991 that Kapsabet Municipality had excised half her property. The suit was instituted on 1st December 2021, a period in excess of 12 years, and no leave for extension of time was exhibited before the court.

p. 6
02

Effect of limitation on the court's jurisdiction and the remaining issues

Holding

Because the claim is statute barred, the court has no jurisdiction to make findings on the issues of misjoinder and whether the plaintiff proved her claim

Reasoning

Relying on Samuel Kamau Macharia, the court's jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation. Following Bosire Ongero, limitation goes to jurisdiction. Citing Republic v Karisa Chengo, a decision made without jurisdiction is void. Accordingly the court declined to determine issues (b) and (c).

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • If a matter is statute barred the court has no jurisdiction to entertain it; limitation goes to jurisdiction
  • Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void, not merely voidable

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit against the 3rd defendant is marked as withdrawn
  2. 2.The instant suit originated by way of a plaint (Multi Track) dated 23rd November 2021 is dismissed with costs to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40 (and Article 40(3) cited by plaintiff's counsel)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Land ActSection 111
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 25 Rule 1

Cases cited (6)

  • Muambi Properties Limited vs Kenya Urban Roads Authority & 2 others
    [2024] KEELC 4307 (KLR)
  • Commissioner of Lands & Another vs Coastal Aquaculture Ltd.
    CA Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1990 (1997) eKLR
  • Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs Intercom Services Limited & 4 others
    (Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003)
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & another –vs- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Bosire Ongero vs Royal Media Services
    [2015] eKLR
  • Republic-vs-Karisa Chengo & 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 40(3) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) invoked; jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chepngetich v National Land Commission & 6 others (Environment & Land Case E006 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided (Multi Track plaint dated 23rd November 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/163/eng@2025-01-27

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