Njunguna & 20 others v Mbukoni Holdings Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Machakos dismissed a claim that a land suit was filed too late, ruling that when the buyer discovered the problem must be decided at trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is time barred under Sections 7 and 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
The suit is not time barred; when the plaintiff discovered the breach of contract or that ownership would not pass is a matter of fact to be ascertained at trial, so the limitation bar cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection
The 2nd Defendant argued the suit was barred under Section 7 (12 years for land recovery) and Section 4(1) (6 years for contract). The court noted the plaintiff paid the purchase price as late as 2009 and took possession, and where fraud or the date of discovery of breach is alleged, the proviso to Section 26(a) postpones the start of the limitation period. Since ascertaining when the plaintiff discovered the breach or fraud requires evidence, a preliminary objection on a pure point of law was not competent.
Whether the 2nd Defendant's preliminary objection was properly before the court
The preliminary objection was properly brought before the court as it may be raised at any time before the final conclusion of the case
The court accepted the definition of a preliminary objection from Mukisa Biscuits and Attorney General v Andrew Mwaura Githinji, holding that such an objection may be raised at any time before final conclusion of the case, ideally at the earliest opportunity to smooth case management. On that basis it found the 2nd Defendant's objection properly brought, even though it ultimately failed on its merits.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct; it cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- Where the date on which a cause of action accrued, including discovery of fraud under the proviso to Section 26(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, is in dispute, the issue cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection but must be ascertained at trial
- A preliminary objection can be brought at any time before the final conclusion of the case, though ideally at the earliest opportunity
- A suit barred by limitation is barred by law and the court cannot grant the relief sought
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the 2nd Defendant is dismissed
- 2.The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs
- 3.It is so ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the suit; the court exercised its inherent and statutory jurisdiction to determine a preliminary objection raised under the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njunguna & 20 others v Mbukoni Holdings Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1701/eng@2026-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.