[2010] KEHC 2702 (KLR)
The court found that the preliminary objection could not be sustained because the defendants failed to provide evidence of the alleged prior proceedings before the Kajiado Land Disputes Tribunal and the Rift Valley Land Appeals Committee. The court emphasized that it could not rely solely on the defendants'...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2702 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nancy Wairimu Njau; Plaintiff: Geoffrey Njau Mungai; Defendant: Joseph Okemwa Ontweka; Defendant: Dickson Ndechu Gatongo; Defendant: Mrs Michael Njuguna
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 75 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Res Judicata, Limitation of Actions, Specific Performance, Fraudulent Transfer, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Nancy Wairimu Njau
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Njau Mungai
Plaintiff
Joseph Okemwa Ontweka
Defendant
Dickson Ndechu Gatongo
Defendant
Mrs Michael Njuguna
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to prior proceedings before the Land Disputes Tribunal and Appeals Committee.
- 2 Whether the suit is time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 3 Whether the preliminary objection raises pure points of law that can dispose of the suit at this stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the preliminary objection could not be sustained because the defendants failed to provide evidence of the alleged prior proceedings before the Kajiado Land Disputes Tribunal and the Rift Valley Land Appeals Committee. The court emphasized that it could not rely solely on the defendants' assertions without documentary proof of the decisions or orders made in those forums. Similarly, the court noted that the dates of the alleged agreements or purchases were not specified in the pleadings or supported by evidence, making it impossible to determine whether the suit was time-barred. As such, the issues raised by the defendants required the presentation and examination of...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Case 75 of 2009
1. NANCY WAIRIMU NJAU
2. GEOFFREY NJAUMUNGAI…………………………………………....PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
1. JOSEPH OKEMWAONTWEKA
2. DICKSON NDECHU GATONGO
3. MRS MICHAEL NJUGUNA………………………………....DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. Before me is a Preliminary Objection by the Defendants herein.It is dated 23. 10. 2009 and is worded thus;
“(a) The Plaintiffs having filed
i.KajiadoLandDispute Tribunal Case No. 375
of 1990which wasdismissed on 12th July 2007 and adopted by the Senior Resident Magistrates Court at Kajiado in Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 33 of 2007 on 9th October 2007 and
ii.ThePlaintiff having filed an appeal to the
Land Disputes Appeals Committee (sic) Rift Valley in case No. 17 of 2007 which was determined (dismissed) onthe 28th October 2008.
Ought not to have the present suit as it contravenes the provision of section 8 (8) and (9) of the Land Disputes Tribunal Act 1990.
(b)No leave was sought to extend the period within which
to file suit (assuming this suit was properly filed).
( c)The Appeals Committee decision being final on any issue
of fact no appeal shall be therefrom to any court.(sic)
(d)The Defendants having bought the suit properties in 1988
and 1991 respectively the current suit is time barred being filed 18 years after the alleged cause of action.
(e)The Plaintiffs suit should be dismissed with costs of the
Preliminary Objection and costs for the entire suit.”
2. I have read the submissions by advocates for the parties and I agree that following the decision in Mukisa Biscuits vs Westend Distribution Ltd [1969] E.A. 696, I can only uphold the Preliminary Objection if;
i.the facts in issue are undisputed and
ii.the pure point of law raised in the nature of a demurrer will bring to an end the entire dispute.
3. In the Plaint dated 18. 3.2009, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant are “beneficial owners” of titles nos Ngong/Ngong/10377, 10376 and 10375 respectively.That the Defendants agreed to “lend” to the Plaintiffs their titles aforesaid at “an agreed price” of Kshs. 85,000/= each.That the Defendants “being employees of a financial institution would secure a loan facility using the transferred title and subsequently recompense the Plaintiff as agreed.”
4. That the Defendants breached the terms of that agreement and obtained the said titles fraudulent and secured them to obtain loans under false pretences.Certain orders are sought including an order that there be specific performance of the agreement and general damages for breach of contract.
5. The Statement of Defence dated 14. 4.2009 denies the allegations in the Plaint and raises the same issues as are reproduced in the Notice of Preliminary Objection elsewhereabove.
6. Can these issues be properly addressed by way of a Preliminary Objection.?I think not.Important as they all are, there is no evidence before me to point me to the decisions of theKajiadoLandDisputes Tribunal Case 375/1990 orRiftValleyLandAppeals Committee Case No. 17/2007. (sic).They may well exist and certain orders made but where are those orders? I cannot take the Defendant’s word on the subject.Grounds 1, 2, and 3 will therefore be overruled for that reason only.
7. Secondly, it is said that the said properties were bought in 1988 and 1991 respectively.Neither the Plaint nor the Statement of Defence indicate on what dates the agreements were executed.I do not have them on record.How can, I merely on the word of the Defendants, assume that they exist, and were executed on unclear dates in 1988 or 1991?Time is specific and no dates are indeed given anywhere in the pleadings or the Notice aforesaid.
8. In the end, like Sir Newbold inMukisa (supra), I am inclined to think that this Objection “unnecessarily increases costs” , “Causes confusion of issues”and I dare add is wholly incompetent.
9. I will overrule the objection with costs to the Plaintiff.
10. Orders accordingly.
ISAAC LENAOLA
JUDGE
Countersigned and delivered at Machakos this 30th day of April 2010.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE