FRANCIS NGARE NDIRITU VS PAULINA WANJIKU MWAURA AND LAND REGISTRAR LAIKIPIA AND 1 Others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYAHURURU

ELC CASE NO. E005 OF 2023

FRANCIS NGARE NDIRITU………………….……………. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

PAULINA WANJIKU MWAURA……….…….………1^ST DEFENDANT

LAND REGISTRAR LAIKIPIA……………………….2^ND DEFENDANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………….3^RD DEFENDANT

RULING

1. Before me is a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7.2.2024 filed by the 1^st defendant raising the following grounds;

“a. This suit is bad in law, fatally incompetent, defective, an abuse of the court process and ought to be dismissed suo moto.

b. This suit is time barred under the Statute of Limitations Act, having been brought over 33 years from the time all the alleged causes of action arose.

c. This honourable court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this matter as it is time barred per the Statute of Limitations Act”

1. The Matter came up for hearing of the Preliminary Objection on 6.2.2025, and the plaintiff was absent despite the fact that service had been effected. There was also no response filed in respect of the said Preliminary Objection.
2. I have considered the Preliminary Objection as well as the submissions of the 1^st defendant. The provisions of Section 7 of the Limitations of Actions Act stipulate 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.”

1. At paragraph 16 of the plaint, it is stated that;

“Plaintiff states that on the 14^th July 1992 he discovered that the said parcel of land known as Marmanet/North Rumuruti/Block 11/2535 has been registered to the 1^st Defendant and title deed was issued in her favour that made him to visit the office of the 2^nd defendant to know more about the way in which the land was registered in the name of the 1^st defendant”

1. While at paragraph 18 thereof, it is stated that;

“The plaintiff states that on 15^th July 1991 the green card was opened by the 3^rd defendant in favourof the 1^st defendant through fraudulent process of registration of title deed.  She was issued with the title deed of the said land known as Marmanet/North Rumuruti/Block 11/2535”

1. From the pleadings, it is clear that the plaintiff was aware that the suit land was registered in favour of the 1^st defendant way back in early 1990s. I am therefore in agreement with the submissions and case law proffered by the 1^st defendant to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with a matter which is statute barred; See E. Torgbor v Ladislaus Odongo Ojuok ( 2015) eklr.
2. I therefore find that the Preliminary Objection dated 7.2.2024 is merited. Thus this suit is hereby struck out for being time barred. The 1^st defendant is awarded costs of the suit as against the plaintiff.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.

LUCY N. MBUGUA

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Lusigi for the 1^st Defendant

Plaintiff – Absent

Nancy Mwangi – Court Assistant