[2019] KEELC 4350 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4350 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's suit was based on a contract for the sale of land entered into in 1979, but the suit was filed in 2014, more than twenty years after the cause of action arose. Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars actions founded on contract after six years from the date the cause...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4350 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: James Alexander Maulo; Defendant: Samuel Nyangweso Olupole
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 554 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed as time-barred
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Transfer of Land, Land Control Board Consent
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Specific Performance Breach of Contract Transfer of Land Land Control Board Consent

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Alexander Maulo

Plaintiff

Samuel Nyangweso Olupole

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and transfer of land is time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance or damages for breach of contract regarding L.R. WEST BUNYORE/EBUSIEKWE/666.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's suit was based on a contract for the sale of land entered into in 1979, but the suit was filed in 2014, more than twenty years after the cause of action arose. Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars actions founded on contract after six years from the date the cause of action arose. The plaintiff did not obtain leave for extension of time to file the suit outside the statutory period. Consequently, the court held that the suit was time-barred and could not be entertained, regardless of the merits of the underlying transaction or the defendant's failure to defend. The claim for specific performance and damages was therefore dismissed as...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for being time-barred under Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  • No orders as to costs.