[2017] KEELC 557 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 557 (KLR)

The appellate court found that the appellant and respondents entered into a binding contract for the sale of three plots at a fixed, all-inclusive price. The appellant, as a non-member of the respondents, was not subject to internal resolutions or subsequent price increases imposed by the respondents' management...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 557 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Catherine Mgendi; Respondent: Utumishi Investments Limited; Respondent: Kenya Police Staff Sacco Society Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 36 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal_allowed
Judges
FM Njoroge, AK Bor
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Contract Variation, Specific Performance, Title Registration
Source Language
en
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Sale of Land Contract Variation Specific Performance Title Registration

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Mgendi

Appellant

Utumishi Investments Limited

Respondent

Kenya Police Staff Sacco Society Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents could unilaterally vary the contract price after the agreement was concluded.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was bound by additional charges imposed after contract formation.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its application of contract law principles and failed to exercise discretion judiciously.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the appellant and respondents entered into a binding contract for the sale of three plots at a fixed, all-inclusive price. The appellant, as a non-member of the respondents, was not subject to internal resolutions or subsequent price increases imposed by the respondents' management committee. The court held that the respondents' unilateral demand for an additional Kshs. 30,000 after the contract was concluded was invalid and unenforceable against the appellant. The trial court erred in law by failing to distinguish between members and non-members and by upholding the respondents' right to vary the contract price unilaterally. The appellate court set aside...

Court Disposition

appeal_allowed

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10th September, 2010 are set aside.
  • The respondents are ordered to effect registration of Plot Numbers 215, 216, and 217 on LR Number Kajiado/Kaputiei North/4105 and furnish the title documents to the appellant at no extra cost, as she has paid the all-inclusive purchase price of Kshs. 186,000.