Karkures (As Legal Representatives of the Estate of Karkores ole Nkukuu Natumi) v Mwaura & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E118 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4722 (KLR)

Applying Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, the court held that issues such as whether a valid sale agreement existed, whether the deceased executed the transfer, whether fraud was committed and when it was discovered all emerge from disputed facts requiring documentary and oral evidence. Accepting the 1st Defendant's version without trial would offend the established principles and blur points of law with factual detail.

While Section 7 imposes a twelve-year limit on actions to recover land, the gravamen of the suit is fraudulent transfer and registration. Section 26 postpones the limitation period until the plaintiff discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. When the fraud became known is a factual issue requiring evidentiary interrogation; concluding time ran from 1987 or 2007 on the defendant's assertions alone would be speculation.

The court held that jurisdiction can only be declined where its absence is clear and ascertainable. Since the limitation argument rests on contested facts (existence and discovery of fraud), the court cannot terminate the suit at the interlocutory stage. If at trial the plaintiff is shown to have known of the transfer beyond the statutory period and Section 26 is inapplicable, the suit may still be found statute-barred.