[2021] KEELC 367 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 367 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents had proper locus standi, having obtained and produced a Limited Grant Ad Litem authorizing them to act on behalf of the deceased's estate, and that the trial court lawfully allowed their substitution. On limitation, the court held that the suit was for recovery of land and thus...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 367 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Koipeitai Nengisoi; Respondent: William Nyamari; Respondent: Isaac Ole Tureti
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal 24 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; trial court judgment upheld
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Limitation of Actions, Adjudication Records, Fraud in Land Registration, Title Challenges, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Locus Standi Limitation of Actions Adjudication Records Fraud in Land Registration Title Challenges Appeals Process

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Koipeitai Nengisoi

Appellant

William Nyamari

Respondent

Isaac Ole Tureti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondents had locus standi to prosecute the suit on behalf of the deceased estate.
  2. 2 Whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22.
  3. 3 Whether the alteration of the adjudication record and subsequent registration of the appellant was lawful or fraudulent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had proper locus standi, having obtained and produced a Limited Grant Ad Litem authorizing them to act on behalf of the deceased's estate, and that the trial court lawfully allowed their substitution. On limitation, the court held that the suit was for recovery of land and thus governed by Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provides a twelve-year limitation period from the date the right of action accrues. The court determined that the right of action accrued in 2001 when the respondents discovered the fraudulent alteration of the adjudication record, and the suit filed in 2011 was within time. The court further found that the appellant...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; trial court judgment upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The judgment of the trial court dated 28th May 2019 is upheld.