plaintiff is indeed evading the doctrine of res judicata. Both Preliminary Objections are upheld on the ground that this suit is Resjudicata.Whether the suit is statute barred24. On this issue 4thdefendant has submitted that fraud is a tort hence the claim falls under section 4 (2) of the Limitation ofActions Act which provides that:“An action founded on tort may not be brought after the end of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued”. 25. 4thdefendant contends that plaintiff has mischievously misrepresented the allegation of fraud and has also been economicalwith the truth. It has been submitted that plaintiff has put in as part of his list of documents, abstract copies of police O.B numberswhich he got after he reported the alleged fraud at the police station this year. However, upon a keen look at his pleadings,specifically his supporting affidavit dated 4thMay, 2018, the averments from paragraphs 2 -8 expound on an event that took place in1977 when he allegedly intended to subdivide “his” land and he clearly states that the named persons therein with the assistance o fa law firm defrauded him of his land. He clearly confesses of his knowledge of the alleged fraud and thus time started running from1977 and not in 2018.26. The 4thdefendant has cited the case ofPeter Kimani Njenga vs Mugo Kamabuni Mugo & 3 others (2018) eKLR where JusticeM.C Oundo stated thus stated“….. In the case of Bosire Ongero vs Royal media services (2015) eKLR the court held that the issueof limitation goes to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain claims and therefore if a matter is statute barred the court has nojurisdiction to entertain the same…..”. 27. The 4thdefendant contends that without a doubt or second guessing, the instant application and the entire suit are stale ab initioand the only effect is to clog the justice system thereby amputating the efficiency and the efficacy of the administration justice andhence only a dismissal with costs would save the situation.28. Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act provides that;“Where, in the case of an action for which a period of limitation is prescribed, either— (a) the action is based upon the fraud ofthe defendant or his agent, or ofany person through whom he claims or his agent; or(b) the right of action is concealed by thefraud of any such person asaforesaid; or(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitationdoes not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could with reasonable diligence havediscovered it….” .29. As pointed out by 4thdefendant, plaintiff appears to have a detailed account of the 1977 transaction as is captured in hisaffidavit of 4.5.2018 paragraph 2-8 thereof. He mentions the RAHEMTULAS as the persons who defrauded him. 42 years down theline, he wants this court to unravel the mystery of that fraud!