[2023] KEELC 16502 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 16502 (KLR)

The court found that the agreement between the parties was entered into on November 3, 2011, but the purchase price was paid on various dates until 2003. Therefore, the cause of action did not accrue until the last payment was made. As such, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 16502 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kalenjin Auto Hardware Limited; Defendant: John K Songok; Defendant: Clementina Chebet Songok; Defendant: Sosiani Builders Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 777 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Preliminary Objection, Sale of Land, Statute Barred Claims
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Limitation of Actions Preliminary Objection Sale of Land Statute Barred Claims

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalenjin Auto Hardware Limited

Plaintiff

John K Songok

Defendant

Clementina Chebet Songok

Defendant

Sosiani Builders Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the 1st Defendant has merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreement between the parties was entered into on November 3, 2011, but the purchase price was paid on various dates until 2003. Therefore, the cause of action did not accrue until the last payment was made. As such, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation of Actions Act. The preliminary objection raised by the 1st Defendant was without merit and was accordingly dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.