[2009] KEHC 2230 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2230 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had placed before it sufficient material to justify the exercise of discretion in his favour. The evidence indicated that the applicant was the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the defendant had erected boreholes and fenced off part of the land, with an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2230 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Karimi Gatithi; Defendant: Lake Kenyatta Water Users Association
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Children Miscellaneous Application 672 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Leave to File Out of Time, Compensation for Land, Proprietary Rights
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Limitation of Actions Leave to File Out of Time Compensation for Land Proprietary 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Karimi Gatithi

Plaintiff

Lake Kenyatta Water Users Association

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to File Suit Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements under Section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act to warrant leave to file suit out of time.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish a prima facie cause of action for compensation for land use.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had placed before it sufficient material to justify the exercise of discretion in his favour. The evidence indicated that the applicant was the registered proprietor of the land in question and that the defendant had erected boreholes and fenced off part of the land, with an initial verbal agreement to compensate the applicant. As negotiations failed, the applicant now sought compensation. The court was satisfied that the requirements under Section 28 of the Limitation of Actions Act had been met, and that the applicant had established a prima facie cause of action. Accordingly, the court granted leave to file the suit out of time as sought in the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the applicant to file suit out of time as prayed in prayer 1 of the Originating Summons dated 1st December 2008.