Omollo (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of John Omollo Nyakongo (Deceased) t/a HR Ganihee & Sons) v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E021 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1071 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a six-year deadline to sue on a contract cannot be extended by a company's letter asking you to wait.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether the deceased’s suit was statute barred under and by virtue of section 4(1) of Cap. 22
- 2.if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the respondent’s letter (referred to by the deceased as an email) dated 25th July 2014 revived the deceased’s cause of action
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit founded on contract was statute-barred under section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act
Yes; the cause of action accrued on or about 9th April 2012 and suit was filed in May 2021, beyond the six-year period.
Section 4(1) bars actions founded on contract brought after six years from accrual. The contract was concluded in April 2006 and the cause of action expired on or about 9th April 2012. The suit was instituted in May 2021, fifteen years after the contract, and this Court's decision in Divecon Ltd v Samani confirms that no action founded on contract may be brought or entertained after six years.
Whether the 2014 letter requesting the claimant to hold the matter in abeyance revived the cause of action or raised an estoppel
No; the letter was not an acknowledgement within section 44(1)(a) and did not amount to an estoppel.
The letter merely requested the deceased not to take precipitate action pending investigations; it contained no clear and unequivocal representation that the respondent would not rely on limitation, no intention to be acted upon, and no detrimental reliance. In any event, suit was filed nine years later, so the cause of action had 'expired twice over'. Denial of liability and requests to withhold action do not of themselves constitute estoppel.
Whether the respondent's 2018 letter denying liability revived the cause of action or raised an estoppel
No; an express denial of liability does not constitute an estoppel or extend limitation.
The 2018 letter expressly declined to pay any amounts over and above what had been paid. Following Gathoni v Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd, only statutory events such as part-payment can extend time; and per Ace Insurance SA-NV v Seechurn, promissory or equitable estoppel requires a clear and unequivocal promise, intention that it be acted upon, and detrimental reliance. An express denial satisfies none of these.
Legal principles established
#- A mere denial of liability, or a request that a claimant withhold proceedings pending investigation or negotiation, does not constitute an estoppel that revives a time-barred contractual cause of action or suspends limitation.
- Only statutory events, such as part-payment, can extend the limitation period in contract; requests to hold a claim in abeyance do not.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Malindi
- HCCC No. 6 of 2021 (ruling dated 22nd February 2022)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court (Appellate Jurisdiction Act); appeal against the ruling of 22nd February 2022 allowing a preliminary objection
Relief refused
#Reversal of the High Court ruling striking out the suit as statute-barred
The suit, founded on contract, was brought 15 years after the contract; the 2014 letter requesting the claimant to hold the matter in abeyance and the 2018 denial of liability neither acknowledged the claim within section 44(1)(a) nor raised an estoppel.
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
No one shall have the right or power to bring after the end of six years from the date on which a cause of action accrued, an action founded on contract.
As held by this Court in Gathoni v Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd [1982] KLR 104, only statutory events, such as part-payment, can extend time.
In conclusion, a mere denial of liability, or a request that a claimant withhold proceedings pending further investigation or negotiation, does not, without more, constitute a clear and unequivocal representation that the defendant will not rely on the limitation period.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently names the trial judge, referring to 'F. N. Githinji, J.' in the opening paragraph but 'S. M. Githinji, J.' in the recitation of the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Omollo (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of John Omollo Nyakongo (Deceased) t/a HR Ganihee & Sons) v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd (Civil Appeal E021 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1071 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (High Court Civil Appeal from HCCC No. 6 of 2021, Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1071/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.