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

V. Shah Trading as Kiambu Service Store v Barua Estates Limited & another [2019] KEHC 3381 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 3381 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3381
Citation
[2019] KEHC 3381 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from a previous judgmentCoramJustice Ogolla
Holding

The court held that the Plaintiffs claim is not time barred and is merited.

Facts

The Plaintiff filed an initial suit in 1993 against the Defendants for various amounts, including Kshs.11,462,586.95 and Kshs.30,000,000. The suit was amended in 2011 to reduce the amount to Kshs.11,462,586.95. The Defendants denied the claim.

Issues

  1. Is the Plaintiffs claim time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act?
  2. Is the Plaintiff's claim for Kshs.11,462,586.95 against the 1st Defendant merited?
  3. Is the Plaintiff's claim as against the 2nd Defendant for Kshs.30 Million with interest at 12% per annum on the basis of the Guarantee dated 23rd March 1989 merited?

Reasoning

The court considered the evidence and statute, concluding that the Plaintiffs claim is not time barred and is merited.

Outcome

The Plaintiffs' claim is not time barred and is merited.

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' claim for Kshs.11,462,586.95 against the 1st Defendant is granted.
  • The Plaintiffs' claim as against the 2nd Defendant for Kshs.30 Million with interest at 12% per annum on the basis of the Guarantee dated 23rd March 1989 is granted.

Remedies

  • Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for Kshs.11,462,586.95 against the 1st Defendant.
  • Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for Kshs.30,000,000 with interest at 12% per annum on the basis of the Guarantee dated 23rd March 1989 against the 2nd Defendant.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 laws of Kenya
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