[2007] KEHC 2531 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2531 (KLR)

The court found that the transaction in question did not require Land Control Board consent because it involved land allotted through the Settlement Fund Trustees, thus falling within the exemption under Section 6(3)(b) of the Land Control Act. Consequently, the transaction was not void for lack of consent. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2531 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Joel Mutunga Ngundo; Respondent: Thomas Munguti Nzengu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 June 2007
Case Number
Civil Appeal 877 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Control Board Consent, Controlled Transactions, Special Damages, Pleading and Proof, Void Contracts
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Control Board Consent Controlled Transactions Special Damages Pleading and Proof Void Contracts

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Mutunga Ngundo

Appellant

Thomas Munguti Nzengu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the land transaction required Land Control Board consent under the Land Control Act.
  2. 2 Whether the transaction was void for lack of Land Control Board consent.
  3. 3 Whether special damages claimed by the respondent were pleaded and proved as required by law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the transaction in question did not require Land Control Board consent because it involved land allotted through the Settlement Fund Trustees, thus falling within the exemption under Section 6(3)(b) of the Land Control Act. Consequently, the transaction was not void for lack of consent. The court further held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, and in this case, there was no evidence on record that the sums claimed were actually paid. The appellant's arguments regarding the necessity of Land Control Board consent and the recovery of monies under a void transaction were therefore misplaced. The appeal was dismissed as the lower court...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent and against the appellant.