Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Charles Corris Momanyi v 1. Board of Governors Nyabururu Girls High School & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CIVIL CASE 271 OF 2002 CHARLES CORRIS MOMANYI ………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1. BOARD OF GOVERNORS NYABURURU GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL 2. PERMANENT SECRETARY MIN. OF EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL..........................…….. DEFENDANTS. RULING Counsel from the defendant raised a Preliminary Objection and stated that suit against the 2nd & 3rd defendant suit is time barred. He referred court to Public Authorities Act which provides that suits against the Act of Public Authorities should be filed within one year. The cause of action in this case accrued on 25/11/99 and suit filed on 24/10/02. This was after one year. No application to extend time was made or if it was they were not served with the courts order. Mr. Minda informed court that plaintiff moved the court in Misc. App. No.264 of 2002 and obtained an order extending time to file the suit. This was before the suit was filed. I have considered the Preliminary Objection. It has no merit. Indeed the plaintiff moved the court and on 22nd October 2002 P. K. A. Birech Commissioner of Assize (as he then was) did grant the applicants application. The court ruling was filed together with the plaint on 24th October 2002, two days after the ruling. Even if it was not served on the defendant that does not mean that he filed the suit without leave. In fact there are no specific legal requirements that the order be served. I therefore Dated KABURU JUDGE find the 14th objection has day no merit of and the same April is dismissed. 2005. BAUNI

page 1 of 2

c/c. Mr. Ogutu H/B for Kimanga for Defendant. Mobisa

page 2 of 2

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.