[2017] KEELC 1830 (KLR)
The court found that while the Plaintiff sought specific performance and a mandatory injunction to compel the Defendant to complete the sale, there was no evidence before the court that the Plaintiff had paid the Kshs. 30 million deposit as required by the agreement. The Defendant did not respond to the application....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1830 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kingdom Capital Africa Limited; Defendant: Intra Africa Assurance Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 654 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted; mandatory injunction and vesting order declined; Plaintiff awarded costs.
- Judges
- AK Bor
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Mandatory Injunction, Temporary Injunction, Breach of Contract, Sale of Land, Vesting Order
- 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
Kingdom Capital Africa Limited
Plaintiff
Intra Africa Assurance Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling the Defendant to complete the sale transaction as per the agreement dated 13/4/2010.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a vesting order in respect of the Suit Properties if the Defendant fails to comply.
- 3 Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the Defendant from breaching or dealing with the Suit Properties pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the Plaintiff sought specific performance and a mandatory injunction to compel the Defendant to complete the sale, there was no evidence before the court that the Plaintiff had paid the Kshs. 30 million deposit as required by the agreement. The Defendant did not respond to the application. The court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of a mandatory injunction at this interlocutory stage. However, to preserve the Suit Properties and prevent further dealings pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the court found it just to grant a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with the properties. The Plaintiff was...
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted; mandatory injunction and vesting order declined; Plaintiff awarded costs.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Defendant from dealing with the Suit Properties pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- The application for a mandatory injunction and vesting order is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI
E.L.C. CASE NO. 654 OF 2016
KINGDOM CAPITAL AFRICA LIMITED……PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
INTRA AFRICA ASSURANCE LIMITED…..DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff through the application dated 21/7/2016 seeks to have the court issue a mandatory injunction to compel the Defendant to complete the sale transaction of the agreement dated 13/4/2010 within 14 days. If the Defendant does not comply, the Plaintiff seeks a vesting order in respect of L.R. No. 8784/10 (Original Number 8784/2/7 and L.R. No. 8784/11 (Original number 8784/2/8) (“the Suit Properties”). The Plaintiff also seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant from breaching or continuing to breach the agreement dated 13/4/2010 and to restrain it from transferring or dealing with the Suit Properties.
The application is support by the affidavit of the Plaintiff’s Director, Gerald Macharia Maina. The application is made on the ground that this is a clear case where the Plaintiff seeks specific performance of a valid and legally binding agreement. The Plaintiffs complaint is that the Defendant has neglected to complete the sale transaction over the Suit Property and that there is no need for waiting for a full hearing of the suit. The Plaintiff maintains that it has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and is prepared to pay the balance of purchase price. The Plaintiff annexed a copy of the sale agreement that it entered into with the Defendant for the sale of the Suit Properties. The agreement states that the purchase price for the Suit Properties was Kshs. 50 million out of which 30 million was payable on execution of the agreement while the balance would either be paid on the completion date or upon registration of the transfer. The agreement gave the completion date as being 30 days from the date of the agreement or such other date as parties may agree in writing. The Plaintiff also annexed copies of the correspondence exchanged on the matter. Despite the reminders and promises to complete the transaction the Defendant failed to honour its obligations. No evidence was placed before the court to show that the 30 Million shillings being 60% of the purchase price was paid by the Plaintiff. The Defendant was served but it did not file any document.
It is just and meet to restrain dealings with the Suit Property pending hearing and determination of this suit. The court is not satisfied that a mandatory injunction ought to issue and directs the Plaintiff to set down the suit for hearing. The Plaintiff will have the costs of this application.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of September 2017.
K. BOR
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mr Macharia for the Plaintiff
No appearance for the Defendant
Mr. V. Owuor- Court Assistant