[2025] KEHC 6629 (KLR)
The court held that the application for leave to apply for an order of mandamus to enforce a decree issued on 22/9/2010 was statute-barred, as more than 12 years had elapsed since the judgment. The court found that the Limitation of Actions Act does not provide for suspension of the limitation period where previous...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 6629 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: GK; Respondent: County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Finance Nairobi County; Interested Party: GK (Minor Suing through Next Friend and Grandmother FNK)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E131 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Order of Mandamus
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Enforcement of Judgments, Mandamus Applications
- 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
GK
Applicant
County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Finance Nairobi County
Respondent
GK (Minor Suing through Next Friend and Grandmother FNK)
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Apply for Order of Mandamus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an application for leave to apply for an order of mandamus to enforce a decree can be entertained after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.
- 2 Whether the filing and withdrawal or striking out of previous applications suspends the running of time under the Limitation of Actions Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for leave to apply for an order of mandamus to enforce a decree issued on 22/9/2010 was statute-barred, as more than 12 years had elapsed since the judgment. The court found that the Limitation of Actions Act does not provide for suspension of the limitation period where previous applications have been struck out or withdrawn. The law treats each new application as a separate suit, and the time continues to run regardless of previous filings. As the decree was stale by operation of law, the court dismissed the application for leave as unavailable to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 8/5/2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Applicant’s Counsel to be notified forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
GK v County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Finance Nairobi County; GK (Minor Suing through Next Friend and Grandmother FNK) (Interested Party) (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E131 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 6629 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (22 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 6629 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Judicial Review
Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E131 of 2025
RE Aburili, J
May 22, 2025
Between
GK
Applicant
and
County Executive Committee Member in Charge of Finance Nairobi County
Respondent
and
GK (Minor Suing through Next Friend and Grandmother FNK)
Interested Party
Ruling
1. The application dated 8th May 2025 is not certified urgent. On the merits thereof, I observe that the decree sought to be satisfied was issued vide judgment delivered on 22/9/2010 vide Nairobi CMCC 5818/2008.
2. Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act provides that a judgment or decree has a lifespan of 12 years. No application for mandamus to compel settlement of decree can be brought after 12 years.
3. From 22/9/2010 to date is over 12 years. Although the applicant claims that she filed application for leave which were struck out with leave to bring fresh applications this is the only application which is before this court for consideration of leave to apply.
4. Where a suit is filed and withdrawn or struck out, time does not stop running nor does it wait for the person. What this means is that if the original suit or proceeding was filed within the limitation period but struck out or withdrawn and the claimant attempts to file it again after the limitation period has lapsed, the new suit will be statute barred, unless the exceptions under the Limitation of Actions Act apply.
5. In other words, the law has no stop the clock provision for suits which are struck out. The new suit is treated as a new separate suit and not a continuation of the struck out suit.
6. As stated above, where a suit is withdrawn or struck out, the time between the filing of that suit and its termination does not suspend limitation. Once time has run out, no relief is available.
7. Accordingly, as the decree sought to be enforced against the Respondent in this case is stale by operation of law and is extinguished by over 14 years, the leave sought is unavailable to the applicant.
8. The application dated 8/5/2025 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Applicant’s Counsel to be notified forthwith.
10. This file is closed
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025. R.E. ABURILIJUDGE