[2018] KEELC 478 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 478 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's right of action accrued on 10th April, 1987 when she was issued with the plot certificate for plot number 349. Under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, the plaintiff was required to file her claim within twelve years, i.e., by 9th April, 1999. The suit was filed in 2010,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 478 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Monica Wakaria Mwangi; Defendant: Mahiira Housing Company Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 72 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed as time barred
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Allocation of Land, Transfer of Title, Forfeiture of Land Rights
Source Language
en
Land and Property Limitation of Actions Allocation of Land Transfer of Title Forfeiture of Land Rights

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

Monica Wakaria Mwangi

Plaintiff

Mahiira Housing Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for transfer of plot number 349 is time barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was properly allocated plot number 349 by the defendant and entitled to its transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant forfeited the plaintiff's rights to the plot for non-development.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's right of action accrued on 10th April, 1987 when she was issued with the plot certificate for plot number 349. Under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, the plaintiff was required to file her claim within twelve years, i.e., by 9th April, 1999. The suit was filed in 2010, almost 23 years after the cause of action arose. The court held that the claim was not for adverse possession and that the plaintiff did not address the limitation issue in her evidence or submissions. As such, the suit was time barred and could not be sustained, regardless of the merits of the allocation or forfeiture arguments. The court dismissed the suit for being statute...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed as time barred

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for being time barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  • There is no order as to costs.