[2005] KEHC 2336 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 2336 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had properly obtained an order extending time to file the suit before filing it, as evidenced by the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2002. The fact that the order was not served on the defendants did not invalidate the suit, as there is no legal requirement mandating...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 2336 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Corris Momanyi; Defendant: Board of Governors Nyabururu Girls High School; Defendant: Permanent Secretary Ministry of Education Science and Technology; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 271 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Preliminary Objection, Extension of Time, Public Authorities Suits
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Preliminary Objection Extension of Time Public Authorities Suits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Corris Momanyi

Plaintiff

Board of Governors Nyabururu Girls High School

Defendant

Permanent Secretary Ministry of Education Science and Technology

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants is time barred under the Public Authorities Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff obtained a valid court order extending time to file the suit.
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve the extension order on the defendants invalidates the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had properly obtained an order extending time to file the suit before filing it, as evidenced by the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2002. The fact that the order was not served on the defendants did not invalidate the suit, as there is no legal requirement mandating such service prior to filing. Therefore, the preliminary objection that the suit was time barred lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.