[2007] KEHC 3527 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 3527 (KLR)

The court held that the tribunal and the Provincial Appeal Committee had no jurisdiction to determine or enforce contracts of sale of land in the absence of Land Control Board consent, as required by the Land Control Act. The agreement between the parties was void for want of consent, and no tribunal or court could...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 3527 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Jamleck Kiura Murathi; Respondent: Angelius Gichobi Karuru; Respondent: Stanley Njogu. J. Maria
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 11 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Land Control Board Consent, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Sale of Land Contracts
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Control Board Consent Jurisdiction of Tribunals Sale of Land Contracts

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

Parties

Jamleck Kiura Murathi

Appellant

Angelius Gichobi Karuru

Respondent

Stanley Njogu. J. Maria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Provincial Appeal Committee and the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine disputes concerning contracts of sale of land.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of Land Control Board consent invalidated the enforcement of the sale agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the appropriate remedy was recovery of money paid rather than enforcement of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tribunal and the Provincial Appeal Committee had no jurisdiction to determine or enforce contracts of sale of land in the absence of Land Control Board consent, as required by the Land Control Act. The agreement between the parties was void for want of consent, and no tribunal or court could lawfully order the transfer of land or enforce such a contract. The only remedy available to the respondents was to recover the money paid under the void agreement. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the orders of the lower tribunals were set aside.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The orders of the Provincial Appeal Committee and the tribunal are set aside.