[2023] KEELC 22320 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 22320 (KLR)

The court held that the alleged laying of water pipes on the appellants' land, if proven, constituted a continuing trespass. As such, the limitation period under section 3(i) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act did not apply, since a new cause of action arises each day the trespass continues. The trial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 22320 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Yunes Boera; Appellant: George Nyamwange; Appellant: Charles Nyamwange; Respondent: Stephen Mabeya; Respondent: James Ogata; Respondent: Lake Victoria South Water Services Board; Respondent: The Attorney General of Kenya
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Striking Out of Suit
Outcome
appeal allowed
Judges
JM Kamau
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Continuing Trespass, Limitation of Actions, Public Authorities Liability
Source Language
en
Land and Property Tort Law Trespass to Land Continuing Trespass Limitation of Actions Public Authorities Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yunes Boera

Appellant

George Nyamwange

Appellant

Charles Nyamwange

Appellant

Stephen Mabeya

Respondent

James Ogata

Respondent

Lake Victoria South Water Services Board

Respondent

The Attorney General of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Appeal From Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Striking Out of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit against the 3rd and 4th respondents was time-barred under section 3(i) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged trespass by laying water pipes constituted a continuing trespass, thus creating a new cause of action from day to day.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in striking out the suit at a preliminary stage instead of allowing it to proceed to full hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the alleged laying of water pipes on the appellants' land, if proven, constituted a continuing trespass. As such, the limitation period under section 3(i) of the Public Authorities Limitation Act did not apply, since a new cause of action arises each day the trespass continues. The trial magistrate erred in striking out the suit at the preliminary stage, as the issue of whether the trespass was continuing required factual determination at a full hearing. The preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law and should not have been the basis for striking out the suit. The orders of the lower court were therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for full...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The orders made by the Principal Magistrate on 25/1/2023 are set aside.
  • Nyamira Chief Magistrate’s ELC No. 24 of 2020 shall proceed to full hearing.