[1997] KEHC 55 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The sale agreements met the basic requirements of enforceable contracts: the parties were identified, the subject matter was sufficiently described, consideration was agreed, and the plaintiff...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KEHC 55 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dr John Nicholas Ondeko; Defendant: Duncan W. Kimani
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1414 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Sale of Land, Specific Performance, Interlocutory Injunctions, Contract Enforcement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr John Nicholas Ondeko
Plaintiff
Duncan W. Kimani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the sale agreements between the parties are enforceable contracts for the sale of land.
- 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The sale agreements met the basic requirements of enforceable contracts: the parties were identified, the subject matter was sufficiently described, consideration was agreed, and the plaintiff had performed his obligations by paying the purchase price and taking possession. Any ambiguities could be resolved at trial. Since the property in question was immovable, damages would not be an adequate remedy. The court concluded that the defendant should be restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The...
Court Disposition
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant is restrained by an order of injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- The plaintiff shall have the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1414 OF 1997
DR JOHN NICHOLAS ONDEKO.................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DUNCAN W. KIMANI..............................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The plaintiff’s cause of action is grounded on two sale agreements marked “B” and “D” respectively on this record.
The facts leading to these proceedings are brief and are set out in both the plaint and the affidavit in support of the application for an injunction. The defendant is the registered proprietor of a piece of land known as L.R. No. 1/218, Marus Gurvey Road Nairobi. By the two sale agreements referred to above, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff two portions of the said piece of land. The consideration for each parcel was agreed and the defendant acknowledges receipt of the full purchase price for both plots although the plaintiff says he is yet to pay Kshs 90,000/-.
The plaintiff proceeded to fence the portions said to have been sold to him. the defendant attempted to demolish the fence hence there proceedings and the application before me.
There are affidavits in support of the application. The defendant has filed grounds of objection and replying affidavits.
For the plaintiff to succeed he must satisfy the conditions for granting injunctions as set out in the case of Giella -v- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd. (1973) E.A. 358. These are now common knowledge and I need not set them out. He has to ;show that the contracts for the sale of the two portions are enforceable.
Both learned counsel have taken the court through the two documents (sale agreements) together with the annextures thereto. Some of the issues canvassed during the arguments in the application belong tot he main trial.
The literal glance at the two sale agreements would tell that the basic requirements of the contracts were met. The names of the parties are there. The subject matter was sufficiently set out, consideration was set and other conditions leading to the acquisition of the titles. The plaintiff has performed his part of the contract by paying the purchase price which the defendant t has acknowledged and by erecting the fence, he has taken possession.
If as the defendant says, there are any uncertainities or ambiguities, these can be explained by evidence. For now if the defendant does anything that may adversely affect the interest of the plaintiff who has made full compliance, he has to be restrained by an order of an injunction.
I find that a very strong prima facie case has been presented by the plaintiff and that this being immovable property, an award of damages will not provide sufficient compensation.
The balance of convenience does not arise here but if it were, the scales would still tilt in favour of the plaintiff, considering the distance he has covered in due performance of the contracts of sale.
In the end the application for injunction succeeds in terms of the Chamber summons dated 10th June, 1997. The plaintiff shall also have the costs of this application.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of October, 1997
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE