Muriakiara v Ngugi (Environment and Land Case E161 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 427 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 9/06/2025 is properly and validly raised to merit consideration
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff's claims relating to breach of contract and recovery of the suit property as set out in the Plaint are statute and time-barred
- 3.Whether the Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the Preliminary Objection was properly raised
The Objection was improperly invoked because limitation, on these pleadings, requires factual inquiry
While the Objection raised jurisdiction, a pure point of law, the crux of the limitation argument turned on when the cause of action accrued and when the Plaintiff discovered the breach or denial of ownership. Those are factual questions requiring evidence at trial. Relying on Mukisa Biscuits, an objection cannot succeed where facts are disputed. The court also noted fair hearing concerns under Articles 50 and 159.
Whether the suit is time-barred under Section 4(1) and Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The suit is not time-barred on the face of the pleadings; when the Plaintiff discovered the breach/denial of ownership is a matter for trial
The Defendant argued the 2003 contract claims expired in 2009 (contract) and 2015 (land recovery). The Plaintiff contended the cause of action accrued in September 2024 when the Defendant moved to sell the suit property. The court held the accrual date and discovery are factual matters ascertainable only at trial, invoking the fraud/discovery proviso to Section 26(a).
Jurisdiction of the ELC over the suit
The ELC has jurisdiction as the suit concerns a contract touching on the purchase of land
Jurisdiction flows from Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13(2) of the ELC Act, which confers power over disputes relating to contracts granting enforceable interests in land. Since the matter relates to a contract for purchase of the suit land, the Court is properly seised. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by parties.
Legal principles established
#- A Preliminary Objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot be raised where any fact has to be ascertained
- The issue of when a cause of action accrued for limitation purposes is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined at trial, not by Preliminary Objection
- A time-barred suit bars the remedy, not the suit itself
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 9/06/2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Plaintiff
- 3.The suit to proceed to trial
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Plaint dated 27/09/2024 with costs as sought by the Defendant
The limitation issue is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidentiary proof and cannot be raised as a Preliminary Objection
Costs
Preliminary Objection dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
I therefore find that this suit is not time barred and that the Preliminary Objection is not merited and I dismiss it with costs.
Given the foregoing, the issue of limitation of actions is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidentiary proof, and cannot be properly raised as a Preliminary Objection.
It is so ordered.
The issue of limitation should be raised by way of a formal application supported by evidence and not as a Preliminary Objection, since the Preliminary Objection ofiends the principles of fair hearing and access to justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Defendant inconsistently by gender, using 'she' and 'her' in submissions while elsewhere 'he/his'
The Plaintiff's name, the Defendant's name and the case number are omitted from the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muriakiara v Ngugi (Environment and Land Case E161 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 427 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/427/eng@2026-02-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.