Mbita (Suing as the Administrator of Mole Mbita Angore Deceased) v Frann Investments Limited & 2 others; Kombe (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E063 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner cannot get a land claim thrown out as 'too late' before trial when fraud is alleged, because when the fraud was discovered must be tested with evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is statute-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Although the claim would ordinarily be time-barred under Section 7 (12 years for recovery of land), the plaintiff pleaded fraud, engaging Section 26, which postpones the start of limitation until discovery of the fraud
The applicant showed registration of the suit property on April 26, 2007 and filing of suit on November 3, 2022, exceeding 12 years. However, the plaint alleges fraudulent transfers, and Section 26 provides that limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. The plaint does not disclose the date of discovery, and the respondent asserts discovery in June 2021 after an official search.
Whether limitation can be determined summarily on an application to strike out
No - where fraud is alleged and the date of discovery is disputed, limitation must be determined at trial on evidence
Relying on Murichu v Mwaniki, Justus Tureti Obara, Sichuan Huashi and Oruta v Nyamato, the court held that limitation is a matter for trial where the date of discovery of fraud is in issue. The certificate of confirmation of grant of October 12, 2022 and the circumstances of discovery could not be resolved on an application but required a hearing.
Whether the court should strike out the plaint
No - striking out is draconian and reserved for the clearest of cases; the plaint raises triable issues
Applying the DT Dobie principle as restated in Mathew Adams Karauri v Zablon Mathenge Itewa, the court reiterated that its core duty is substantive justice; striking out divests a party of a hearing and should be used sparingly, only where the pleading is demurrable beyond redemption. A triable issue on the discovery of fraud existed.
Legal principles established
#- A court must down tools the moment it finds it lacks jurisdiction
- Limitation of time, where fraud is alleged, is a matter for determination at the trial on evidence, not a preliminary point
- The power to strike out a pleading should be used sparingly and only on the clearest of cases
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated October 22, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff/respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (statutory jurisdiction under the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 invoked in the application)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbita (Suing as the Administrator of Mole Mbita Angore Deceased) v Frann Investments Limited & 2 others; Kombe (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E063 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 2143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2143/eng@2026-04-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.