[2017] KEHC 243 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the suit, both for the period since the cause of action arose and for the year following his alleged discovery of the sale. Additionally, the applicant did not present any documentary evidence to establish his...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 243 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Njeru Mutua; Respondent: Michael K. Kamunyi; Respondent: Ephantus Runji Njeru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 146 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Extension of Time, Money Claims, Burden of Proof
- 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
Njeru Mutua
Applicant
Michael K. Kamunyi
Respondent
Ephantus Runji Njeru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for extension of time to file a suit out of time under Section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the suit.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable cause of action regarding his claim to the proceeds of sale of Plot No. 31, Ishiara Market.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the suit, both for the period since the cause of action arose and for the year following his alleged discovery of the sale. Additionally, the applicant did not present any documentary evidence to establish his ownership or interest in Plot No. 31, Ishiara Market, nor did he demonstrate that the respondents received the sale proceeds on his behalf. The statutory requirements under Section 28(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act were not met, as the applicant did not show an arguable cause of action or fulfill the evidentiary burden. Consequently, the application for extension of time was...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2016 (O.S.)
NJERU MUTUA...............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
MICHAEL K. KAMUNYI..................................1ST RESPONDENT
EPHANTUS RUNJI NJERU..............................2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant seeks for extension of time to file a suit for a claim of Shs.50,000/= from the respondents being his share of proceeds of sale of Plot No. 31, Ishiara Market. The suit is time barred and there is need for extension of time.
2. A suit for claim of money must be filed within three years under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap. 22). The applicant states that the cause of action arose on 4/02/2009 when the plot in issue was sold by the respondents. Since then nine (9) years have passed. This court is empowered by Section 28 of the Act to extend time whereas the time provided by statute for filing the suit has expired.
3. Section 28(2) empowers the court to grant leave for filing of a suit out of time where the prescribed period has expired but it calls for the applicant to fulfill certain conditions.
4. It provides:-
(1) An application for the leave of the court for the purposes of section 27 of this Act shall be made ex parte, except in so far as rules of court may otherwise provide in relation to applications made after the commencement of a relevant action.
(2) Where such an application is made before the commencement of a relevant action, the court shall grant leave in respect of any cause of action to which the application relates if, but only if, on evidence adduced by or on behalf of the plaintiff, it appears to the court that, if such an action were brought forthwith and the like evidence were adduced in that action, that evidence would in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be sufficient—
(a) to establish that cause of action, apart from any defence under section 4(2) of this Act; and
(b) to fulfill the requirements of section 27(2) of this Act in relation to that cause of action.
5. The applicant is also required by the law to satisfy the court that the delay was inadvertent caused by circumstances beyond his control. In his affidavit, the applicant explains that he only came to learn of the sale of the plot only last year, meaning in 2015 considering that this application was filed on 29/08/2016. The applicant has not presented any other reason why he delayed to file his suit.
6. If the applicant discovered in 2015 that the plot had been sold, he has not explained why it took him another one year to file the suit. It was mandatory to explain this delay knowing very well that the cause of action was time-barred at the time of discovery. No reason has been given why this period of one year delay was not explained.
7. Section 28(2) requires the applicant to present the evidence that he has an arguable cause of action by presenting evidence.
8. In this application, the applicant must show that he had a claim on Plot No. 31 Ishiara or show that the sale proceeds was received by the respondents or that transfer to a 3rd party was executed by the respondents.
9. To the contrary, the applicant has not annexed any certified copy of register or other form of ownership document, not even an agreement to show that he purchased or acquired the plot together with others.
10. It is my considered opinion that the delay of 8 years since the action arose has not been explained and that the delay in filing after discovering in the year 2015 that the plot had been sold also remains unexplained. The documents of ownership or demonstration of his interest is lacking in this application.
11. If the court was to grant extension of time, it would do so without any basis rendering it an order that cannot help the applicant even if he was to file the intended suit. It is trite law that courts shall not issue orders in vain.
12. I find no merit in this application and I dismiss it with costs.
13. It is hereby so ordered.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED THIS 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mr. Njiru for the applicant