[1984] KEHC 49 (KLR)
The court found that the sale agreement between the parties was void for want of Land Control Board consent as required by the Land Control Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover all monies paid to the defendant under the agreement, including the amount paid to the advocate for preparing the sale...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KEHC 49 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mwaura Gathogo; Plaintiff: Mukono Karanja; Defendant: Nepatao Ole Punyua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 752 of 1983
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Formal Proof Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment_for_plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Land Sale Agreements, Land Control Board Consent, Refund of Purchase Price
- 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
Mwaura Gathogo
Plaintiff
Mukono Karanja
Plaintiff
Nepatao Ole Punyua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Formal Proof Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of the purchase price paid under a land sale agreement lacking Land Control Board consent.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to general damages for breach of the sale agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sale agreement between the parties was void for want of Land Control Board consent as required by the Land Control Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover all monies paid to the defendant under the agreement, including the amount paid to the advocate for preparing the sale agreement. The court held that there was no basis for an award of general damages since the agreement was unenforceable in law. Judgment was therefore entered in favour of the plaintiffs for the total sum paid, but not for general damages.
Court Disposition
judgment_for_plaintiffs
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs for KES 27,200.
- Defendant to pay costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
MWAURA GATHOGO
MUKONO KARANJA .................………………………………………....................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NEPATAO OLE PUNYUA................…………………………...................................... DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
This suit came up by way of formal proof. The plaintiffs are asking for Judgment against the defendant for:-
(a) shs. 27,200
(b) General Damages
(c) Costs of this suit
(d) Such further or alternative relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant.
From the evidence adduced it is clear that there was a valid sale agreement between the defendant as the seller and the plaintiffs as the purchasers of a piece of land known as parcel No 265 at Nairegia Nkare in Narok District. The defendant was paid an initial deposit of shs.24,000 towards the agreed purchase price of shs.50,000. Later the plaintiffs paid shs.2200. Hence the total amount already paid by the plaintiffs is shs.26,200. The plaintiffs also paid shs.1,000 to the advocate who prepared the sale agreement.
The defendant later changed his mind and so he could not allow the plaintiffs to utilize this land. Note that the parties did not obtain the consent of the Land Control Board. Hence under section 7 of the Land Control Act (cap 302) the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the purchase price paid on PW1 thereof. In this case the plaintiffs had paid shs.26,200 to the defendant. They are entitled to this amount. On top of this amount I would add shs.1000 which they paid the lawyer who prepared the sale agreement. There is no basis for general damages since the agreement was not enforceable for want of consent of the relevant Land Control Board. In view of the foregoing I enter judgment in favour of the plaintiffs in the sum of the plaintiffs order accordingly.
Delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of October, 1984.
E O’KUBASU
JUDGE