Chepkelat & another (Suing as the Legal Administrators of the Estate of Michael Kipkoskei Chepkelat) v Mureithi & 8 others (Environment & Land Case E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4558 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that fraud-based time limits can only be decided at trial, so a landowner's suit challenging a fraudulent transfer will proceed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether limitation can be raised by preliminary objection where fraud is pleaded
It cannot; limitation based on fraud must be decided at trial on evidence. Since the Plaintiff pleaded discovery of fraud in December 2023, time began running then and the suit is not time-barred.
The court adopted authority holding that limitation defences require evidence at trial. Fraud was pleaded with discovery in December 2023 and a police report in February 2024; section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act postulates that limitation does not begin to run until discovery of the fraud, a fact ascertainable only at trial.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a fraudulent transfer of charged land
The ELC has jurisdiction because the predominant issue is the fraudulent transfer affecting title to land, not the charge accounts.
Relying on Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and applying the predominant purpose test, the court found the pleadings raise no claim on accounts or charges but challenge fraudulent transfers affecting title, which falls squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A defence of limitation of time based on alleged fraud is a matter for determination at trial and cannot be resolved summarily by preliminary objection
- Under section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act, where an action is based on fraud, limitation runs from discovery of the fraud
- Where a dispute is hybrid, the predominant purpose test determines whether the ELC or High Court has jurisdiction
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st, 3rd, 5th and 9th Defendants' preliminary objections are dismissed
- 2.Costs of the preliminary objections awarded to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkelat & another (Suing as the Legal Administrators of the Estate of Michael Kipkoskei Chepkelat) v Mureithi & 8 others (Environment & Land Case E077 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4558 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4558/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.