Karani & another v Njogu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E064 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8530 (KLR) (27 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 8530 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E064 OF 2025 MD MWANGI, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025 BETWEEN VINCENT CHARLES KARANI ......................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF MARY MORAA KARANI .................................................................. 2ND PLAINTIFF AND GEORGE WAINAINA NJOGU ....................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT PEWAKI ENTERPRISES LIMITED .............................................. 2ND DEFENDANT LAND REGISTRAR, NGONG ...................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF KAJIADO ................................... 4TH DEFENDANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS .............................................................. 5TH DEFENDANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ........................................................ 6TH DEFENDANT RULING (In respect of the 2nd defendant’s preliminary objection dated 5th August 2025, on the premises that the plaintifis’ suit ofiends the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of Kenya). 1. This ruling is in respect of the 2nd defendant’s preliminary objection dated 5th August 2025. The 2nd defendant avers that the plaintifis’ suit ofiends the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitations of Actions Act. 2. In his submissions in support of the preliminary objection, the 2nd defendant points out that the plaintifis at paragraph 10 of the plaint aver that they purchased the suit property on 28th September 2004 while he (the 2nd defendant) entered into an agreement to purchase the property, Ngong Township Block 2/538 from one George Wainaina Njogu on 7th March 2018, who was allegedly the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8530/eng@2025-11-27 1
page 1 of 2
registered proprietor at the time. He further submits that the plaintifis’ claim is not supported by facts or documentary evidence. He avers that the property Ngong Township Block 11/338 is alien to him as what he owns is the property known as Ngong Township/Block 2/538. 3. From my keen reading of the submissions by the 2nd defendant in support of the preliminary objection, the 2nd defendant has not demonstrated how the plaintifis’ suit ofiends the provisions of Section 7 of the Limitations of Actions Act. What he submits on, as elaborated in paragraph 2 above, is how he acquired the property Ngong Township/Block 2/538 and the lack of documentary evidence in support of the plaintifis’ claim. 4. Secondly, and as pointed out by the plaintifis in their submissions in opposition, the preliminary objection was raised before either the 2nd defendant or the 1st defendant, for that matter, filed a statement of defence. 5. It is trite that a preliminary objection as held in the case of Mukhisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited v West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA, and other subsequent decisions of the superior courts of this country, arises expressly or impliedly from the pleadings. In the absence of a statement of defence, a preliminary objection lacks basis or legal grounding. 6. In the case of Stephen Onyango Achola & Ano v Edward Hongo Sule & another, KSU C.A. Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2004 (2004) eKLR, the Court of Appeal was emphatic that; “ The 2nd respondent, having failed to specifically plead the issue of limitation in its defence it was not entitled to rely on that issue and base its preliminary objection on it; nor will the 2nd respondent be entitled to rely on that defence, during the trial unless it amends its defence. It is trite law that cases must be decided on the issues pleaded and we need not cite any authority for that proposition. It is equally not to be forgotten that a party who is entitled to rely on the defence of limitation is perfectly entitled to waive such a defence and thus let the suit proceed to trial on its merit.” 7. That said, the preliminary objection by the 2nd defendant lacks legal basis. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintifis. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Ms. Kihenjo for the Plaintifis Ms. Njiru for the 1st Defendant Ms. Wambugu for the 2nd Defendant N/A by the 3rd & 4th Defendants Court Assistant: Kendi M.D. MWANGI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8530/eng@2025-11-27 2
page 2 of 2