Kamau & 4 others v Njuguna (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6862 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused a church permission to sue late over disputed land, but confirmed it can file afresh with the right trustees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to file suit out of time in a land ownership claim
The court has no power to grant extension of time for the intended suit; the application was dismissed
The court held that Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act, on fraud, does not require an application for leave but allows suit to be filed notwithstanding expiry of limitation where the action falls within it. Section 27 leave is limited to actions for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty, not land ownership claims. Since time stopped running in 2004 upon discovery of alleged fraud, and the Applicants may file with correct trustees, extension of time was unavailable.
When limitation begins to run in fraud-based claims
Time stopped running in 2004 when the Plaintiffs discovered the alleged fraud
Applying Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act and Margaret Wairimu Magugu v Karura Investment Limited, the court found that limitation in a fraud-based action does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the fraud. As the Plaintiffs pleaded discovery of fraud in 2004 prompting the 2004 suit, time was taken to have stopped running then.
Whether the Applicant's prior suit failing for want of locus standi justified an extension application
The proper course was to file suit with the correct trustees, not to seek extension of time
The court noted the earlier suit (Nakuru Civil Suit No. 247 of 2004, later ELC 129 of 2019) was struck out for want of locus because the plaintiffs were not the rightful trustees, the 3rd plaintiff having ceased to be a trustee in September 2022 before the 2024 judgment. The court clarified the Applicants remain free to file suit with the correct trustees for determination on merit.
Legal principles established
#- Where an action is based on fraud, limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it (Section 26, Limitation of Actions Act)
- Sections 22 and 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act do not envisage an application for leave to extend time; they empower a party to file suit despite expiry of the limitation period where the action falls within their scope
- A society can only sue through its officials or trustees, and must institute suit with its rightful trustees
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11th April, 2025 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The Applicants are at liberty to file the case with its correct trustees and have the same heard and determined on merit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction; application invoking Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Sections 26 and 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau & 4 others v Njuguna (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6862 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 11th April, 2025 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6862/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.