[2006] KEHC 1378 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1378 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim, as pleaded in the plaint, is for the recovery of land, specifically the retransfer of L.R. NO.IRIAINI/KAIRIA/106. Therefore, the applicable limitation period is twelve years under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, not six years under Section 4(a) as argued by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 1378 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Macharia Mariu; Defendant: Joseph Nguthiru Kang'aru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 62 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Defence
Outcome
defendant's application dismissed
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Recovery of Land, Striking Out Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Limitation of Actions Recovery of Land Striking Out Pleadings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macharia Mariu

Plaintiff

Joseph Nguthiru Kang'aru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Defence

  1. 1 Whether the suit is time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is founded on contract or recovery of land.
  3. 3 Whether the defence should be struck out for disclosing no cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim, as pleaded in the plaint, is for the recovery of land, specifically the retransfer of L.R. NO.IRIAINI/KAIRIA/106. Therefore, the applicable limitation period is twelve years under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, not six years under Section 4(a) as argued by the defendant. Since the suit was brought within the twelve-year limitation period for recovery of land, it is not time barred. Consequently, the defendant's application to strike out the defence for disclosing no cause of action fails.

Court Disposition

defendant's application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's Chamber Summons dated 3rd March 2005 is dismissed with costs.