Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Appeal 103 of 1996 |
---|---|
Parties: | EUNICE KARIMI KIBUNJA v MWIRIGI M’RINGERA KIBUNJA |
Date Delivered: | 16 Oct 1996 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Court of Appeal at Nyeri |
Case Action: | Judgment |
Judge(s): | Johnson Evan Gicheru, Abdulrasul Ahmed Lakha, Richard Otieno Kwach |
Citation: | EUNICE KARIMI KIBUNJA v MWIRIGI M’RINGERA KIBUNJA [1996] eKLR |
Case History: | (Appeal from Ruling and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Kuloba J) dated 4th March, 1993 IN H. C. C. C. NO. 126 OF 1992) |
Court Division: | Civil |
Parties Profile: | Individual v Individual |
County: | Nyeri |
History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
Case Outcome: | Allowed with costs |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NYERI
Civil Appeal 103 of 1996
EUNICE KARIMI KIBUNJA.…………………..….………APPELLANT
AND
MWIRIGI M’RINGERA KIBUNJA………………….…RESPONDENT
(Appeal from Ruling and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Kuloba J) dated 4th March, 1993
IN
H. C. C. C. NO. 126 OF 1992)
************************
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit by way of an originating summons was dismissed by the superior court (Kuloba, J.) by his ruling delivered on March 4, 1993 on a so called preliminary point of law that the suit was time barred.
By her originating summons the plaintiff claimed a declaration that she had become entitled by adverse possession to 5 acres out of a parcel of land ABOTHUGUCHA/GITHONGO/494. Without any evidence or finding as to when the possession by the plaintiff became adverse to that of the defendant or when the suit became barred by limitation, the judge dismissed the plaintiff suit.
We have carefully considered the appellant,’ complaint and find that the complaint is fully justified. The issue before court clearly required a full hearing and we reiterate that the practice of raising point, which should be argued in the normal manner, by way of preliminary objection does nothing but unnecessarily increase cost and, on occasion, confuse the issues. A preliminary point cannot be raided if any fact has to be ascertained.
Accordingly and, for the reasons above stated, the appeal is allowed with costs here and in the court below and the case is remitted to the superior court for hearing on its merits.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 16th day of October, 1996.
J. E. GICHERU
…………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R.O. KWACH
……………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.A.LAKHA
…………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR