Ezekiel & Anor v Kohali & Anor

Ezekiel & Anor v Kohali & Anor

The Claimants had actual knowledge of the extent of the Defendants' title prior to execution of the September Agreement and could not rely on the implied obligation to show good title or on misrepresentation. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to specific performance of the September Agreement without abatement of the purchase price.

Parties
Claimant: Freddy Jacob Ezekiel; Claimant: Menashi Mark David Ezekiel; Defendant: David Kohali; Defendant: Haim Kohali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/property / Judgment After Trial of Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed; Counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Misrepresentation, Good Title, Easements, Land Sale, Abatement of Purchase Price
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Misrepresentation Good Title Easements Land Sale Abatement of Purchase Price

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freddy Jacob Ezekiel

Claimant

Menashi Mark David Ezekiel

Claimant

David Kohali

Defendant

Haim Kohali

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/property / Judgment After Trial of Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plot A included the entirety of the Access Strip
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants contracted to sell Plot C with vehicular right of way and easements for services over Plot A
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants had title to grant such rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants had actual knowledge of the extent of the Defendants' title prior to execution of the September Agreement and could not rely on the implied obligation to show good title or on misrepresentation. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to specific performance of the September Agreement without abatement of the purchase price.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; Counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Specific performance of the September Agreement in favour of the Defendants without abatement of the purchase price
  • Claimants' claims for specific performance with abatement or damages dismissed