Kamau & 4 others (The Registered Trustees of New Testament Church of God Kenya) v Njuguna t/a Charismata Ministries Network & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1333 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a church's 20-year-old land dispute, ruling that filing earlier cases does not pause Kenya's 12-year time limit.
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 plaintiff's suit is time barred
- 2.The implication of the striking out of the plaintiff's earlier suit (originally No 47 of 2004, subsequently registered as ELC No 129 of 2019) for lack of locus standi
- 3.Whether the plaintiff has met the threshold for grant of temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit filed after the striking out of ELC No 129 of 2019 for lack of locus standi is time barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The suit is time barred; striking out of the prior suit for want of locus standi does not save limitation, and prosecution of earlier proceedings does not suspend time
The dispute arose in 2004 and the claim is for recovery of land governed by Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act, which bars such actions after twelve years. The plaintiff argued that time stopped running while the earlier suit was pending, but the court found no such provision in the statute. The exceptions under Sections 26 and 27 were not invoked, and the Indian principle of excluding time spent on proceedings struck out for jurisdictional defects does not apply in Kenya.
Whether the plaintiff met the threshold for a temporary injunction
The question became spent once the suit was struck out as time barred
The court held that if the limitation question is answered in the affirmative, it need not consider the injunction threshold, since the matter would be spent. The suit having been found time barred, the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2024 seeking injunctive and other interim relief was dismissed in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- The pendency of a matter before a court does not stop time from running under the Limitation of Actions Act; a plaintiff must invoke the statutory exceptions to extend time
- The exclusion of time spent pursuing failed litigation due to lack of jurisdiction, as codified in India (Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act), is not the law in Kenya
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is time barred and is therefore struck out
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
- 3.The plaintiff's application dated 28th October 2024 is dismissed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining defendants from dealing with L.R Mau Summit/Molo Block 1/181 and 1/182 and from interfering with church operations
The suit itself was struck out as time barred, rendering the injunction application unarguable
Release or preservation of movable property (motor vehicles, tents, public address systems)
Dismissed with the injunction application as the suit was struck out
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs
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.
I have considered the two applications and find that the suit is time barred and therefore struck out with each party bearing their own costs. The Plaintifis' application dated 28th October 2024 is hereby dismissed.
There is nowhere in the Statute that states that the pendency of a matter before a court stops time from running.
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
The object of any limitation enactment is to prevent a Plaintifi from prosecuting stale claims on the one hand, and on the other hand protect a Defendant after he has lost evidence for his defence from being disturbed after a long lapse of time.
That is not the case in Kenya.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' roles are labelled inconsistently; the defendants' application refers to the applicants as 'plaintifis/respondents' and the plaintiff is sometimes referred to in the plural ('Plaintifis') despite being a single entity
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau & 4 others (The Registered Trustees of New Testament Church of God Kenya) v Njuguna t/a Charismata Ministries Network & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1333 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of 2024 (Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1333/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.