[2018] KEELC 1898 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 1898 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff and defendant entered into agreements for the sale of two acres of land, but the defendant was not the registered proprietor and thus could not pass title. The plaintiff's claim was based on contract, specifically the agreements dated 20.11.2005 and 19.4.2006. Under section 4(1)(a)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 1898 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Kiprop Cherutich; Defendant: Vincent Kipchoge Kwambai
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 197 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
suit dismissed as statute barred and based on a null and void agreement
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Land Sale Agreements, Locus Standi, Land Control Board Consent
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Land Sale Agreements Locus Standi Land Control Board Consent

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Kiprop Cherutich

Plaintiff

Vincent Kipchoge Kwambai

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement is null and void for lack of Land Control Board consent.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to sue the defendant for breach of contract and fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff and defendant entered into agreements for the sale of two acres of land, but the defendant was not the registered proprietor and thus could not pass title. The plaintiff's claim was based on contract, specifically the agreements dated 20.11.2005 and 19.4.2006. Under section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, actions founded on contract must be brought within six years. The suit was filed after the expiry of this limitation period, making it statute barred. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that this was an action to recover land, noting that the prayers sought were for recovery of the market value and improvements, not the land itself....

Court Disposition

suit dismissed as statute barred and based on a null and void agreement

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed for being time barred and based on a null and void agreement.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.