[2021] KECPT 238 (KLR)

[2021] KECPT 238 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the applicant sought to execute a judgment and decree issued in 2006, but the application for execution was filed in December 2020, more than twelve years after the date of the decree. The Tribunal held that Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars any action upon a judgment after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECPT 238 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sammy Kipchirchir Maiyo; Respondent: Air Kenya Sacco Society Limited; Respondent: Co-operative Bank of Kenya
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 403 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Garnishee Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application
Outcome
application dismissed; preliminary objection upheld
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Garnishee Orders, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Garnishee Orders Execution of Decrees

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sammy Kipchirchir Maiyo

Applicant

Air Kenya Sacco Society Limited

Respondent

Co-operative Bank of Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Garnishee Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment of the sums owing under the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicant sought to execute a judgment and decree issued in 2006, but the application for execution was filed in December 2020, more than twelve years after the date of the decree. The Tribunal held that Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars any action upon a judgment after twelve years from the date of delivery. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of any attempts by the claimant to execute the decree within the limitation period, nor was there any application for extension of time. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the use of the word 'may' in Section 4(4) conferred discretion, holding that the statutory bar was clear...

Court Disposition

application dismissed; preliminary objection upheld

Orders

  • The application dated 7th December 2020 is dismissed.
  • The preliminary objection is upheld.