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 excerpt (ELC, Eldoret)· [2025] KEELC 6777 (KLR)

Sawe v Waithaka & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6777 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2025
2,944 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a 1996 land claim can proceed because constructive trust claims are not blocked by limitation periods.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection dated 29 April 2025 contending that the plaintiff's suit, founded on a sale agreement of 27 July 1996, was statute-barred under sections 4(1) (contract, six years) and 7 (recovery of land, twelve years) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and ought to be struck out with costs. The plaintiff, whose late husband had purchased the suit land and alleged full payment, execution of transfer documents and delivery of the title, maintained that her claim was anchored on constructive trust to be implied from the circumstances, and that such claims are not barred by the Act. The court, applying Mukhisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, held that the objection was raised on pure points of law and met the threshold, but noted that constructive trust is implied from the facts and entails judicial discretion. Examining the plaint, the court found that although the claim originated in the 1996 agreement, it also rested on constructive trust pleaded against all defendants. Following Musekenya v Kortom, the court held that a claim founded on constructive trust falls within the exception in section 20(1)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act and is not time-barred under section 7. The preliminary objection was found unmerited and struck out; notably, despite success, the plaintiff was denied costs, with each party bearing their own costs. The substantive suit now proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukhisa Biscuit threshold

Holding

It did meet the threshold, being raised on pure points of law (limitation), though the constructive trust element requires judicial discretion and falls outside a proper preliminary objection.

Reasoning

The court accepted that limitation of actions touches on jurisdiction and that the objection was premised on sections 4 and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. However, constructive trust is implied from the circumstances of each case, entailing the exercise of judicial discretion, which cannot be determined on a preliminary objection.

p. 6
02

Whether the plaintiff's suit is time-barred under sections 4 and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

No. Although the genesis of the claim is the 1996 sale agreement, the claim also rests on constructive trust, which is excepted under section 20(1)(b) and therefore not barred.

Reasoning

The court found from paragraphs 17–19 of the plaint that the plaintiff pleaded the doctrine of trust against the 1st defendant as administrator of the vendor's estate and against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Guided by Musekenya v Kortom, the court held such a claim is excepted under section 20(1)(b) and cannot be time-barred under section 7.

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection can only be raised on a pure point of law, on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct, and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised.
  • A claim founded on constructive trust falls within the exception in section 20(1)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act and is not time-barred under section 7.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 29th April, 2025 is struck out
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)Section 4(1)
  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)Section 7
  • Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22)Section 20(1)(b)

Cases cited (14)

  • South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited v Charles M. Nyantare
    Migori High Court Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2019
  • Sohanlaldurgadass Rajput & Another v Division Integrated Development Programmes Co. Ltd
    [2021] eKLR
  • Benson Oketch Okello v Benson Nyandiga Onguru
    [2019] eKLR
  • Grace Wanjiru Gachari v Stephen Maina Muchiri
    ELC Case No. E010 of 2023
  • Bosire Ongera v Royal Media Services
    [2015] eKLR
  • Shar & 7 Others v Mombasa Bricks & Tiles Ltd & 5 Others
    [2023] KESC 106 (KLR)
  • Chombo v Msagha & Another
    [Civil Appeal No. E023 of 2020] [2023] KECA 88 (KLR)
  • Isaac M'Inange Kiebie v Isaaya Theuri M'Kintari & Another
    [2028] eKLR (as printed)
  • Elijah Sadala Msagha v Benedict Mwakio Mchombo & another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Willy Kimutai Kitilit v Michael Kibet
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    1969 E.A. 696
  • Oraro v Mbaja
    [2005] 1 KLR 141
  • Twalib Hatayan and Another v Said Saggar Ahmed Al Heidy and 5 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Musekenya v Kortom
    [Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2023] [2025] KEELC 3709 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the ELC Act; suit filed 19.08.2024 (specific provision not stated in judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sawe v Waithaka & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E051 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6777 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in excerpt (ELC, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6777/eng@2025-10-09

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