[2019] KEELC 841 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 841 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that all sub-divisions of parcel number 1311 had been transferred to third parties by the Defendant, as required by the Sale Agreement. The Plaintiffs did not produce searches or copies of titles for the sub-divisions to demonstrate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 841 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lancaster Mutune Sila; Plaintiff: Mackenzie Mutiso Sila; Defendant: Saminico Company Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 13 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
suit dismissed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Breach of Contract, Purchase Price Dispute
Source Language
en
Land and Property Sale of Land Breach of Contract Purchase Price Dispute

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancaster Mutune Sila

Plaintiff

Mackenzie Mutiso Sila

Plaintiff

Saminico Company Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached the Sale Agreement dated 27th March, 2008 by failing to pay the balance of the purchase price for parcel Matungulu/Sengani/3473.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs proved that all sub-divisions of parcel number 1311 were transferred to third parties by the Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the balance of the purchase price and general damages for breach of contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that all sub-divisions of parcel number 1311 had been transferred to third parties by the Defendant, as required by the Sale Agreement. The Plaintiffs did not produce searches or copies of titles for the sub-divisions to demonstrate that the contractual condition for payment of the balance had been met. Without such evidence, the court could not conclude that the Defendant was in breach of the agreement or that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the balance of the purchase price or damages. The suit was therefore dismissed for lack of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

suit dismissed

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.