[2002] KEHC 650 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant failed to obtain the title deed for the property as required by the agreement for sale, a fact admitted in the defence and confirmed by correspondence from the defendant's advocates. This failure constituted a breach of contract, entitling the plaintiffs to a refund of the deposit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 650 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael K. Gitau; Plaintiff: Pyramid Investments Ltd; Defendant: Kenya Triangle Ranches Co., Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 5463 of 1990
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Deposit Refund, Sale of Land
- 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
Michael K. Gitau
Plaintiff
Pyramid Investments Ltd
Plaintiff
Kenya Triangle Ranches Co., Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant breached the agreement for sale by failing to obtain the title deed and complete the transaction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the deposit paid under the agreement.
- 3 Whether an order of specific performance should be granted in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant failed to obtain the title deed for the property as required by the agreement for sale, a fact admitted in the defence and confirmed by correspondence from the defendant's advocates. This failure constituted a breach of contract, entitling the plaintiffs to a refund of the deposit paid. The court declined to order specific performance because there was no evidence that the title deed was now available or that all necessary consents had been obtained. Judgment was therefore entered for the plaintiffs for the refund of the deposit with interest and costs.
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiffs
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiffs for KES 2,518,000 against the defendant.
- Interest at court rates from the date of filing the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 5463 OF 1990
MICHAEL K. GITAU………………………………………1st PLAINTIFF
PYRAMID INVESTMENTS LTD…………………….…2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA TRIANGLE RANCHES CO., LTD……………….DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Pyramid Investments ltd was joined as a second plaintiff on 27. 2.95.
By an amended plaint filed on 15. 5.91, the two plaintiffs claim shs 2,518,000 from defendant being deposit paid in pursuance to agreement of sale dated 29. 4.86 which sale defendant failed to complete. Alternatively plaintiff seeks an order of specific performance of the agreement of sale.
M/S Atkison Cleasby & Satchu Advocates appear for the defendant. They have been represented in this suit by the firm of A.H. Malik and Co. Advocates.
Two advocates from the firm of A.H.H. Malik and Company Advocates attended court today. They applied for adjournment which application was refused. The two advocates then asked for leave to leave the court and the trial proceeded without them.
Mr. Paul Musinga a Director of Pyramid investments ltd gave evidence on behalf of the second defendant.
He also gave evidence on behalf of the second defendant as he holds a specific power of Attorney from first plaintiff dated dated 25. 9.2001
The Agreement for sale date 29. 8.86 was produced as exhibit. It shows that defendant agreed to sell to the two plaintiffs a parcel of land known as Kuranze Ranch measuring 204 375 acres at a price of shs 42,000, 000/= The Agreement shows that shs 2,518,000/= had been paid to vendors advocate upon the signing of the agreement.
In addition Mr. Paul Musinga produced documents which verify that plaintiffs infact paid shs 2,518,000/= to the defendants Advocates as a deposit.
According to the agreement and the evidence of Mr. Paul Musinga the balance of the purchase price was to be paid on or before 30. 6.86 provided that the vendor shall have obtained the Title Deed of the farm. Mr. Paul Musinga testified that defendant failed to obtained the title Deed. This fact is admitted in paragraph 7 of the Defence. The letter dated 15. 2.88 (Ex 5) from defendants Advocates further confirm that defendant failed to
obtained the Title Documents The refund of the deposit paid was demanded by plaintiffs Advocates. The defendants Advocates by a letter dated 16. 6.89 (Ex7) merely informed plaintiffs advocates that the deposit paid to them was paid to defendant and defendant has no money to make a refund. Defendant does not claim that the deposit is not refundable according to the Agreement.
I am satisfied that it is the defendant who failed to complete the agreement and that plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the deposit. The order of specific performance of the Agreement cannot be given because there is no evidence that the Title Deed is now available and that all necessary consents have been given by relevant authorities.
Consequently, I allow plaintiffs suit and enter judgment for plaintiffs against the defendant for shs 2,518,000 with interest at court rates from date of filing the suit and costs of this suit.
E. M. Githinji
Judge
23. 9.2002
Mr. Gatuguta for plaintiffs present