The High Court has struck out a KSh324.9 million damages claim tied to a disputed 2009 CRB listing, while fraud allegations remain alive.
A 15-year legal battle has narrowed sharply after the High Court dismissed major claims against NIC Bank.
Justice John R. Wananda struck out defamation, loss of creditworthiness, and related special-damages claims.
However, allegations that an impostor used another person’s identity to secure financing will proceed to trial.
The dispute began in 2010, when NIC Bank demanded KSh841,986.25 from Erick Kombo Moseti.
The bank claimed the amount arose from an unpaid hire-purchase facility for a tipper motor vehicle.
Moseti denied signing the agreement and said an unknown person had used his identity.
That allegation became the foundation of a counterclaim that has evolved dramatically over fifteen years.
15-Year Fight
Moseti filed his original defence through Minda & Company Advocates in December 2010.
He alleged that NIC Bank had fraudulently entered an agreement with an unidentified person.
He further claimed the transaction portrayed him as a fraudster who failed to honour debts.
His counterclaim sought general damages for alleged fraud and defamation arising from that transaction.
The case changed substantially after Moseti instructed new lawyers years later.
In March 2023, Lumalas Achieng & Kavere Advocates filed an amended defence and counterclaim.
The amendment alleged that NIC Bank caused Moseti’s CRB listing in August 2009.
He claimed the listing damaged his creditworthiness and restricted his ability to obtain financing.
Moseti further alleged that he sold several vehicles after struggling to access credit.
Those vehicles, according to his pleadings, supported his public transport business.
He initially placed the resulting financial losses at KSh247,038,182.
The claim grew even larger two years later, when Moseti amended his pleadings again.
The September 2025 amendment increased the alleged losses to KSh324,868,525.
It also alleged that his public transport business eventually collapsed in 2012.
Moseti attributed that collapse to the continuing consequences of the alleged CRB listing.
That enormous claim prompted NIC Bank to mount a limitation challenge before trial.
Clock Runs
NIC Bank argued that Moseti’s own pleadings placed the alleged CRB listing firmly in August 2009.
The bank therefore argued that the limitation periods had expired long before the later amendments.
Kenyan law generally allows three years for tort claims, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
Defamation claims, however, carry a significantly shorter 12-month limitation period.
Moseti’s lawyers argued that the objection raised factual questions requiring a full trial.
They described the alleged CRB consequences as a continuing wrong that remained harmful.
They also argued that the full extent of the financial damage emerged much later.
The lawyers therefore urged the court to allow the claims to proceed for evidentiary determination.
Justice Wananda disagreed that limitation required a full trial in these circumstances.
He found that the relevant dates emerged clearly from Moseti’s own pleadings.
The judge therefore held that the limitation challenge satisfied the test for a Preliminary Objection.
He relied on the established Mukisa Biscuit principle governing pure questions of law.
The judge said limitation laws promote certainty while preventing disputes from remaining indefinitely unresolved.
He also noted that timely litigation helps preserve evidence and supports fair trials.
Defamation Out
The defamation claim ultimately became the first major casualty of the court’s ruling.
Justice Wananda found that the alleged cause of action accrued when the CRB listing occurred.
That date was August 2009, according to Moseti’s own pleadings before the court.
The twelve-month limitation period therefore expired around July 2010.
Yet Moseti’s original defence and counterclaim arrived in December 2010.
The judge consequently found the defamation claim approximately five months outside the statutory window.
Importantly, the judge rejected NIC Bank’s argument concerning when defamation entered the proceedings.
He found that defamation had already appeared in Moseti’s original 2010 defence.
The later amendments merely expanded and particularised allegations that were already pleaded.
That distinction mattered because the court was not treating the entire claim as newly created.
Moseti nevertheless argued that the alleged wrongdoing constituted a continuing tort.
The judge rejected that reasoning, distinguishing continuing wrongs from completed acts with continuing consequences.
He cited authorities holding that lingering harm does not automatically create a fresh cause of action.
The court therefore refused to restart limitation simply because alleged financial consequences continued.
Justice Wananda was particularly direct when rejecting the attempt to repackage the defamation claim.
He described the approach as an attempt to circumvent limitation law and concluded, “I reject it.”
The court consequently struck out the defamation and loss-of-creditworthiness portions of Moseti’s counterclaim.
Fraud Survives
The ruling nevertheless stopped short of giving NIC Bank victory over the entire counterclaim.
Justice Wananda treated the fraud allegations differently because limitation rules apply differently to fraud claims.
Moseti had pleaded fraud in his original December 2010 defence, rather than introducing it decades later.
Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act also provides special treatment for claims founded upon fraud.
Under that provision, limitation can run from when the claimant discovers, or reasonably could discover, fraud.
The judge noted an apparent contradiction surrounding Moseti’s alleged discovery of the fraud.
Moseti claimed he discovered the fraud in December 2011, despite pleading fraud during 2010.
Nevertheless, the court concluded that the fraud claim was not caught by limitation.
The related impersonation allegation also survived and will proceed alongside the remaining claims.
That leaves an important factual question unresolved for the eventual trial.
The court has not determined whether an impostor actually obtained financing using Moseti’s identity.
Nor has it made a final finding that NIC Bank committed fraud or improperly handled the transaction.
Those allegations remain matters for substantive determination rather than findings established by this ruling.
KSh324.9m Falls
The biggest financial consequence of the ruling concerns Moseti’s KSh324.868 million special-damages claim.
The judge found that the claim was directly connected to the alleged 2009 CRB listing.
Because the underlying loss-of-creditworthiness claim was time-barred, the associated special damages could not survive.
READ ALSO: High Court Strikes Out KSh10 Million Claim by Former Java House Worker Over His Photograph
Justice Wananda therefore struck out the special-damages claim alongside the defamation allegations.
The Preliminary Objection consequently succeeded only in part.
The court struck out defamation, loss of creditworthiness, and related special-damages prayers.
However, the remaining causes of action, including fraud and impersonation, will proceed to trial.
NIC Bank was also awarded the costs of the Preliminary Objection.
The ruling narrows a dispute that has remained unresolved since its original filing 15 years ago.
The remaining courtroom battle will now focus heavily on the disputed transaction and alleged identity fraud.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.
