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

Meshack Abok Waga v Ernest Ondoro Juma [2019] KEELC 1850 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 1850 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1850
Citation
[2019] KEELC 1850 (KLR)
Decided
16 July 2019
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPosturePreliminary objection on point of lawCoramG.M.A. ONGONDO
Holding

The suit is barred by sections 4 and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act (Cap 22) and is res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21). The plaintiff's suit is hereby struck out with costs to the defendant.

Facts

The plaintiff, Meshack Abok Waga, claims to be the registered owner of land parcel No. East Karachuonyo/Kobuya/880, which he alleges was fraudulently transferred to the defendant, Ernest Ondoro Juma. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and cancellation of the defendant's title deed.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is statute barred by dint of the provisions of Sections 4,7 and 8 of the Limitation of Actions Act
  2. Whether the suit is res judicata

Reasoning

The suit is stale under Sections 4 and 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act due to the long period between the right to recover land and the filing of the suit. The suit is also res judicata as the same parties were involved in a previous case (Oyugis PMCC number 147 of 2011).

Outcome

The plaintiff's suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Chapter 22
  • Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21
Cases cited (4)
  • Rawal –v- Rawal (1990) KLR
  • John Florence Maritime Limited and another –v- Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure and 3 others (2015) eKLR
  • Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition
  • Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edition)
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case