[2010] KEHC 517 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and reasonable grounds for the delay of over three decades in seeking leave to file suit out of time. The applicant was aware of all material facts and merely expected others to act, which is not a valid reason for extension. Furthermore, the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 517 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Moses Wesangula Wanyama; Respondent: Ben Khaemba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 96 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Limitation of Actions, Authority of Personal Representative, Refund of Purchase Price
- 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
Moses Wesangula Wanyama
Applicant
Ben Khaemba
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing suit out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant has legal authority to pursue the claim as administrator of the deceased's estate.
- 3 Whether the claim for refund of purchase price is too remote to warrant extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient and reasonable grounds for the delay of over three decades in seeking leave to file suit out of time. The applicant was aware of all material facts and merely expected others to act, which is not a valid reason for extension. Furthermore, the applicant did not annex a grant of representation to prove his legal authority to pursue the claim on behalf of the deceased's estate. In the absence of such authority, the applicant lacked locus standi. Even if the applicant had been appointed as personal representative, the claim was considered too remote and lacking in merit due to the inordinate delay. The application was therefore...
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application for leave to file suit out of time is struck out.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT
AT BUNGOMA
MISC. APPL. NO.96 OF 2006
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUIT OUT OF TIME
BETWEEN
MOSES WESANGULA WANYAMA....................................APPLICANT
AND
BEN KHAEMBA................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This is a ruling on an application to institute a suit out of time dated 23. 03. 2006. The Applicant is the administrator of the estate of his grandfather Joel Wanakacha Sitati. He states that his grandfather bought five (5) acres of land in 1967 from one Ben Khaemba the Respondent and paid the full purchase price. The grandfather took over the land and the vendor gave vacant possession. In 1974, the vendor Ben Khaemba came back to the land with the consent of the Applicant’s grandfather. The grandfather to the applicant died in the same year. The Applicant’s father had died in 1963. When the Respondent returned to the land, it was agreed that he could refund the purchase price paid by the Applicant’s grandfather. To date no refund has been done and no action has been taken by the Applicant or his relatives. It is this refund which the Applicant wishes to pursue in a civil suit if he is granted leave to file the suit out of time.
The reasons for delay are that if the refund of the purchase price is not pursued, the family of the Applicant will be rendered destitute. Secondly, that the other relatives were reluctant to follow up the matter with the Respondent because he is their blood relative. The cause of action arose in 1974 when the Respondent returned to the land and promised to refund the purchase price. The grandfather of the Applicant died the same year giving a legal right to his beneficiaries to pursue the refund on being appointed personal representatives of the deceased. This application was filed on 23/03/2006 which is 32 years after the cause of action arose.
Although the law allows extension of time to file a suit, the issue of reasonableness of a cause of action and the period of time taken before applying for extension of time must be taken into consideration. The Applicant does not plead ignorance of any material facts which prevented him from bringing the suit on time. It is clear in his affidavit that all material facts were within his knowledge only that he expected other people to take action but they failed to do so. This is not a good enough reason to extend time of a three decade old cause of action. It is the grandfather of the Applicant who had bought the land from the Respondents. The Applicant may be a beneficiary of the deceased but it is absurd to follow causes of action which are this remote.
The Respondent filed a replying affidavit although he did not attend the hearing of the application. He denies knowledge of the annexed handwritten land sale agreement. He also annexes a copy of search to show that he is the registered owner of the land. The Respondent raises the issue that no grant has been obtained by the Applicant to give him authority to pursue the claim.
The Applicant in his affidavit says it is the Respondent who stays on the portion which he has sold. He does not himself say that he stays or cultivates the said portion. In his application, the Applicant is pursuing refund of the purchase price paid to the respondent by his grandfather. He lays no claim of adverse possession. The decision of SALIM VS BOYD & ANO. MOMBASA HCCC NO.12 OF 1968 relied on by the Respondent is irrelevant since is deals with adverse possession.
I reject the argument that the family of deceased will be rendered destitute if leave is not granted. This family has survived for over 30 years since their grandfather died.
In the supporting affidavit paragraph 10, the Applicant depones that he has been appointed administrator of the estate of his deceased grandfather. However there is no annexure of any grant. It is the grant which gives any person the authority to follow up interests in the estate of a deceased person. In absence of a grant, this court finds that the Applicant has no legal authority to file such a claim. The application is hereby struck out with costs.
I wish to point out that even if the Applicant had been appointed the personal representative of the deceased, his application lacks merit as pointed out earlier.
F. N. MUCHEMI JUDGE
Ruling dated and delivered at Bungoma this 1st day of December, 2010 in the presence of Mr. Onyando for the Applicant.
F. N. MUCHEMI JUDGE