[2013] KEHC 4211 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4211 (KLR)

The court found that although the respondent admitted to the sale agreement and receipt of the full purchase price, it did not have title to the suit property and was therefore unable to supply the completion documents. The court held that specific performance cannot be ordered where it is impossible for the respondent to comply, as the respondent was not the registered proprietor and could not transfer the property. The court also noted that the applicant did not seek damages as an alternative remedy. Consequently, the court declined to grant specific performance and dismissed the suit.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 4211 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geofrey Kinuthia Njoroge; Respondent: Macro Ventures Developers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 324 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Frustration of Contract
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sale of Land Remedies for Breach of Contract Frustration of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geofrey Kinuthia Njoroge

Applicant

Macro Ventures Developers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of specific performance compelling the respondent to supply completion documents for the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's inability to provide completion documents due to lack of title constitutes a valid defence to specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondent admitted to the sale agreement and receipt of the full purchase price, it did not have title to the suit property and was therefore unable to supply the completion documents. The court held that specific performance cannot be ordered where it is impossible for the respondent to comply, as the respondent was not the registered proprietor and could not transfer the property. The court also noted that the applicant did not seek damages as an alternative remedy. Consequently, the court declined to grant specific performance and dismissed the suit.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is hereby dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.