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

Mary Wanyama & 5 others v John Oluoch Otieno [2018] KEHC 2037 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2037 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2037
Citation
[2018] KEHC 2037 (KLR)
Decided
28 November 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment in a civil caseCoramKiari Waweru Kiari
Holding

The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent as the application for execution was not barred by the expiration of the limitation period.

Facts

The appellants were sued for general and special damages after the respondent sustained injuries while working as a mason in the appellants' premises. The respondent was awarded Kshs.100,000 in general damages and costs of the suit. The appellants filed an application seeking to have the execution of the judgment barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for execution was barred by the expiration of the limitation period
  2. Whether the consent entered within the twelve years rendered the application for execution non-barred

Reasoning

The judgment was delivered on 10th August 2000, and twelve years expired on 9th August 2012. Time started to run afresh on 8th August 2012 when the parties entered a consent. The consent was entered within the twelve years, and the judgment debtors were given 30 days to pay.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application for execution was not barred by the expiration of the limitation period

Remedies

  • Costs to the respondent

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Limitation of Actions Act
Cases cited (2)
  • Njuguna v Njau (1980) eKLR
  • Mohamed v Sardar (1970) EA 358
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