SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Richard Toroitich v Mike K Lelmet & 4 others [2015] KECA 556 (KLR)

[2015] KECA 556 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
556
Citation
[2015] KECA 556 (KLR)
Decided
24 June 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypecivilPostureAppeal from the High Court's ruling upholding preliminary objection and striking out the appellant's suit and motionCoramMUSINGA, GATEMBU, MURGOR, E. Obaga
Holding

The High Court's ruling upholding the preliminary objection and striking out the appellant's suit and motion is set aside. The appellant's suit and motion are reinstated for hearing and disposal on the merits.

Facts

The appellant claims to have purchased five acres of land from the deceased, William Cheruiyot Lelmet, in 2003 and 2005. The respondents deny the sale and claim the appellant trespassed on the land in 2014.

Issues

  1. When did the appellant's cause of action arise?
  2. Whether the preliminary objection based on limitation was properly raised and upheld

Reasoning

The court held that the cause of action arose when the respondents perpetrated the alleged unlawful actions in 2014, not when the appellant entered into the contested sale agreements. The court also found that the respondents' counterclaim was inextricably linked with the appellant's claim.

Outcome

The appellant's suit and motion are reinstated.

Orders

  • The appellant's suit and motion are reinstated for hearing and disposal on the merits by the High Court.
  • The appellant shall have the costs relating to the hearing of the preliminary objection in the High Court.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors Ltd
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case