Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    Civil Suit 177 of 2000

    Uploaded by

    tonykimaru71
    John Mwangi Mathenge sued Daniel Ngugi Rao seeking a declaration that he was the legal allottee of a parcel of land and cancellation of the defendant's title deed. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was statute-barred. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action arose in 1987 when the defendant obtained a title deed, but the suit was not filed until 2000, more than 12 years later in violation of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court therefore struck out the plaintiff's suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civil Suit 177 of 2000

    Uploaded by

    tonykimaru71
    8 views2 pages
    John Mwangi Mathenge sued Daniel Ngugi Rao seeking a declaration that he was the legal allottee of a parcel of land and cancellation of the defendant's title deed. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was statute-barred. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action arose in 1987 when the defendant obtained a title deed, but the suit was not filed until 2000, more than 12 years later in violation of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court therefore struck out the plaintiff's suit.

    Original Title

    Civil_Suit_177_of_2000

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    John Mwangi Mathenge sued Daniel Ngugi Rao seeking a declaration that he was the legal allottee of a parcel of land and cancellation of the defendant's title deed. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was statute-barred. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action arose in 1987 when the defendant obtained a title deed, but the suit was not filed until 2000, more than 12 years later in violation of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court therefore struck out the plaintiff's suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    8 views2 pages

    Civil Suit 177 of 2000

    Uploaded by

    tonykimaru71
    John Mwangi Mathenge sued Daniel Ngugi Rao seeking a declaration that he was the legal allottee of a parcel of land and cancellation of the defendant's title deed. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was statute-barred. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff's cause of action arose in 1987 when the defendant obtained a title deed, but the suit was not filed until 2000, more than 12 years later in violation of the Limitation of Actions Act. The court therefore struck out the plaintiff's suit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    John Mwangi Mathenge v Daniel Ngugi Rao [2005] eKLR

    REPUBLIC OF KENYA
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
    AT NAKURU

    Civil Suit 177 of 2000

    JOHN MWANGI MATHENGE (Suing as the personal legal representative of the Estate of
    GACHARAMU

    KABUTU(DECEASED)……......................................................……….PLAINTIFF

    VERSUS

    DANIEL NGUGI RAO……………………................................…….DEFENDANT

    RULING

    On 21st March, 2003 the defendant raised a preliminary objection to the plaintiff’s suit which soought
    a declaration that the plaintiff was the legal allottee of a parcel of land known as Nyandarua/Sabugo/429
    (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”) and cancellation of the title deed issued to the defendant
    in respect of the suit premises and vacant possession of the same.

    The preliminary objection was as follows:-

    (a) That the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is statute-barred and therefore should be
    struck out with costs.

    (b) That this honourable court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit.

    The plaintiff stated in paragraph 5 of his plaint that the defendant obtained a certificate of outright
    purchase of the suit premises on 10th June, 1987 and that is when the cause of action accrued. The suit
    was filed on 30th March, 2000 and that was after a period of 12 years, 9 months and 20 days. The
    defendant’ counsel, Mr. Kariuki Mwangi submitted that the deceased’s title was extinguished after
    expiry of 12 years from 10th June, 1987. He therefore submitted that the plaintiff’s claim was statute
    barred in terms of Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 and urged the court to strike out the
    entire suit.

    He sought to rely on the Court of Appeal decision in PETER THUO KAIRU VS KURIA GACHERU
    [1988]2 KAR 111 where the court found that at the time when the appellant sought to enter the suit land
    his title as well as that of his predecessor in title had already been extinguished and therefore dismissed
    the appeal.

    Mr. Mwangi further submitted that since the suit was time barred, the court had no jurisdiction to
    entertain the suit.

    http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 1/2


    John Mwangi Mathenge v Daniel Ngugi Rao [2005] eKLR

    Mr. Orina for the respondent said that the suit was not time barred. He said that it had to be
    demonstrated by evidence that the defendant had been in quiet possession and undisturbed for a period
    in excess of 12 years. He said that the plaintiff had been making effort to remove the defendant from the
    suit premises. He said that the preliminary objection was premature and could only be raised after
    evidence had been taken.

    Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act is clear that:-

    “An action may not be brought by any person to recover land after the end of twelve years from the
    date on which the right of action accrued to him or, if it first accrued to some person through whom he
    claims, to that person.”

    I have carefully considered the pleadings filed by both parties as well as the submissions made by
    both counsel and I am inclined to agree with the defendant’s counsel that the plaintiff’s suit is statute
    barred, the cause of action having arisen on 10th June, 1987 and the suit having been filed on 30th
    March, 2000. I therefore strike out the plaintiff’s suit and award costs thereof to the defendant.

    DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED at Nakuru this 15th day of November, 2005.

    D. MUSINGA

    JUDGE

    15/11/2005

    Ruling delivered in open court in the presence of Mr. Rabera holding brief for Mr. Orina for the
    respondent and N/A for the applicant.

    D. MUSINGA

    JUDGE

    15/11/2005

    While the design, structure and metadata of the Case Search database are licensed by Kenya Law under a Creative Commons
    Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, the texts of the judicial opinions contained in it are in the public domain and are free from any copyright restrictions.
    Read our Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

    http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 2/2

    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

    You might also like