[2018] KEELC 2468 (KLR)
The court found that the agreement for sale dated 26th October 1973 was not stamped as required by the Stamp Duty Act. Section 19 of the Act expressly prohibits the admission of unstamped instruments in evidence in civil proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. The court determined that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2468 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Athumman Juma Mwakuandika; Defendant: Martha Wangu Muriithi; Defendant: Elijah Waichanguru Muriithi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 218 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Objection sustained; unstamped agreement excluded from evidence.
- Judges
- CK Yano
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Unstamped Documents, Stamp Duty Requirements, Registration of Documents
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Athumman Juma Mwakuandika
Plaintiff
Martha Wangu Muriithi
Defendant
Elijah Waichanguru Muriithi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an unstamped agreement for sale is admissible in evidence in civil proceedings.
- 2 Whether the agreement dated 26th October 1973 complies with the Stamp Duty Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the agreement for sale dated 26th October 1973 was not stamped as required by the Stamp Duty Act. Section 19 of the Act expressly prohibits the admission of unstamped instruments in evidence in civil proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here. The court determined that the document did not comply with the statutory requirements and therefore could not be admitted as evidence. The objection by the plaintiff was upheld, and the agreement was excluded from the record.
Court Disposition
Objection sustained; unstamped agreement excluded from evidence.
Orders
- The objection to the production of the unstamped agreement for sale dated 26th October 1973 is allowed and sustained.
- The court declines to admit the said agreement as evidence in the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
ELC 218 OF 2004
ATHUMMAN JUMA MWAKUANDIKA.............PLAINTIFF
-VS-
1. MARTHA WANGU MURIITHI
2. ELIJAH WAICHANGURU MURIITHI.....DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. This matter came up for defence hearing on 17th April 2018 when the 1st defendant testified as DW1. The witness stated that she was relying, among other documents, on a handwritten Agreement for sale dated 26th October 1973 and therefore wanted to produce the said Agreement as an exhibit. An objection was taken by the Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mr. Ndege, to the production of the said Agreement, a copy of which was attached to the Defendants’ List of Documents filed on 4th July 2014. The objection is based on the fact that the said document was not stamped as required by the provisions of Section 19 of the Stamp Duty Act Cap 480 Laws of Kenya and therefore was not admissible in evidence. Counsel for the Defendants Ms. Mango did not respond to the objection raised.
2. I have considered the objection. Section 19 of the Stamp Duty Act provides inter alia that:
“(1) ……no instrument chargeable with stamp duty shall be received in evidence in any proceedings whatsoever, except-
a) in criminal proceedings; and
b) in civil proceedings by a collector to recover stamp duty,
unless it is stamped.”
Section 4 of the Registration of Documents Act Cap 285 provides inter alia that all documents conferring or purporting to confer, any right, title or interest in or over immovable property shall be registered.
3. I have perused the Agreement dated 26th October 1973. The same is not stamped. It is clear that the same does not comply with the provisions of the
4. Stamp Duty Act. I find that the objection raised by the Plaintiff’s Counsel is merited. The same is allowed and sustained. The Court declines to admit the said Agreement as evidence in the suit. It is so ordered.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered at Mombasa this 18th day of July 2018.
_________
C. YANO
JUDGE