Carolyne Awino Aluoch & Another v Grace Anyango Owiti & Another
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it cannot extend the twelve-year deadline for land claims, dismissing buyers' bid to sue over a 2008 land sale.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to extend time under Sections 27 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The Court lacks jurisdiction; those sections apply only to personal-injury tort claims, not to land-recovery or contract claims.
The intended claim is in substance one for recovery of land or rights thereto, governed by Section 7's twelve-year bar. Sections 27 and 28 are confined to tort claims for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty with personal-injury damages. Binding Court of Appeal authority (Mary Osundwa; Pius Kimaiyo Langat) and ELC precedent (M'Rinkanya) confirm no discretionary enlargement exists for land claims. The first issue was answered in the negative.
Competence of the application and availability of equitable discretion
The application is incompetent; even on the merits, the claim accrued in 2008 and the wrong statutory provisions cannot revive it.
The right of action accrued at the latest upon the Respondent's alleged failure to transfer after adjudication or upon registration of the title in her sole name. The Applicants became aware of the registration in 2025 and filed a suit that was struck out on limitation grounds. Grounds of Opposition correctly identified the jurisdictional bar; absence of a replying affidavit does not cure the want of jurisdiction.
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; no reason to depart from the general rule.
Having dismissed the application, the Court found no reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, and ordered the Applicants to bear the Respondent's costs.
Legal principles established
#- Section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act permits extension of time only for actions founded on tort for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty involving personal injuries, and confers no jurisdiction to extend time for contract or land-recovery claims.
- The Limitation of Actions Act does not vest courts with discretionary jurisdiction to enlarge the twelve-year period for recovery of land.
- Section 26 (fraud/concealment) does not require or authorise a pre-suit leave application; the proper course is to plead fraud or concealment in the substantive suit.
- Residual procedural provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and constitutional articles cannot confer jurisdiction that a statute has withheld.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th August 2026 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The Applicants shall bear the Respondent's costs of the application.
- 3.This file is marked as closed.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22); Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 40, 48 and 50 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Carolyne Awino Aluoch & Another v Grace Anyango Owiti & Another", Case Analysis (2026). Misc. Application No. E053 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6258/eng@2026-10-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.