[2014] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence or explanation as to why he could not file the intended suit within the prescribed limitation period. There was no demonstration of ignorance of material facts, disability, or discovery of fraud or mistake that would justify extension of time under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2095 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Estherina Njoki; Respondent: William D. Nyamu Josphat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kerugoya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case 39 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BN Olao
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Leave to File Out of Time, Trusts in Land, Beneficiary Rights
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Estherina Njoki
Applicant
William D. Nyamu Josphat
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has met the legal requirements for leave to file a suit out of time under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether sufficient reasons have been provided to justify extension of time to file a claim for recovery of trust property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence or explanation as to why he could not file the intended suit within the prescribed limitation period. There was no demonstration of ignorance of material facts, disability, or discovery of fraud or mistake that would justify extension of time under the Limitation of Actions Act. The applicant merely narrated the history of the land's ownership without addressing the statutory requirements for extension of time. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had not met the threshold for granting leave to file suit out of time and dismissed the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2014 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERUGOYA
MISC ELC CASE NO. 39 OF 2014
ESTHERINA NJOKI........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
WILLIAM D. NYAMU JOSPHAT.............................RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant herein has by this ex-parte Notice of Motion sought leave to file suit out of time seeking orders that one acre of land be curved out of the parcel of land known as BARAGWE/KARIRU/2583. The application is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 26 and 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The same is supported by the ex-parte applicant’s nine (9) paragraphs affidavit in which he has deponed, inter alia, that the respondent is his brother out of a polygamous family and was registered as owner of the parcel of land BARAGWE/KARIRU/87 to hold in trust for the other family members but that in 1985, the respondent caused the said land to be sub-divided into two portions being BARAGWE/KARIRU/937 and 938 which he has been further sub-dividing and selling to third parties. That the respondent is now currently the registered owner of BARAGWE/KARIRU/2583.
I have considered the application. It is clear that the applicant seeks to file a suit as a beneficiary to recover trust property and as provided under Section 20 (2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, such action may not be brought after six years from the date the cause of action occurred. The cause of action appears to have accrued in 1985 hence this application.
The Limitation of Actions Act (CAP 22 Laws of Kenya) gives the Court power to enlarge time within which a suit may be brought. By virtue of Section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act, a party who seeks the Court’s leave to bring an action out of time must fulfill the requirements set out in Section 27 (2) of the Limitation of Actions Act. That means the applicant must prove that material facts relative to the cause of action that he proposes to file were or included facts of a decisive character which were at all times outside his knowledge (actual or constructive). If the extension is sought in cases of fraud or mistake, the applicant must show when he discovered the fraud or mistake. In cases where the applicant was under a disability, the applicant must lead evidence to show that he was under a disability when the limitation period caught up with him. There are therefore stringent requirements that an applicant has to meet in an application such as this one.
Looking at the application before me and more particularly the supporting affidavit, it is clear that no reasons have been placed before this Court to explain why the leave sought ought to be granted. There is no mention of any ignorance of any facts on the part of the applicant or any disability that prevented him from filing the intended suit in time. The Court therefore has no material upon which to consider the application. All that the applicant has done is give a narrative of how the land in dispute has changed hands. He has not met the requirements set out in the Limitation of Actions Act that would allow the Court to grant him the leave sought notwithstanding the sympathy that this Court may have for him.
In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion dated 2nd July 2014 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
3RD OCTOBER, 2014
3/10/2014
Before
B.N. Olao – Judge
Mwangi – CC
Mr. Chomba for Mr. Mwai for Applicant – present
Respondent – absent
COURT: Ruling delivered this 3rd day of October, 2014 in open Court.
Mr. Chomba for Mr. Mwai for Ex-parte Applicant – present
B.N. OLAO
JUDGE
3RD OCTOBER, 2014