[2015] KEHC 2323 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance of the purchase price by the agreed date and did not secure a written extension from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was therefore entitled to sell the property to the 2nd defendant, who became the registered owner. There was no evidence of fraud or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2323 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mwangi Ndirangi; Defendant: Veronicah Chepwambok Too; Defendant: Khatumba Taherali Rajabali alias Mohamed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 35 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Transfer of Land, Ownership Disputes
- 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
Mwangi Ndirangi
Plaintiff
Veronicah Chepwambok Too
Defendant
Khatumba Taherali Rajabali alias Mohamed
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement for plot number 1901.
- 2 Whether the transfer of the property to the 2nd defendant was unlawful, illegal, or unprocedural.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is to blame for failing to pay the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance of the purchase price by the agreed date and did not secure a written extension from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was therefore entitled to sell the property to the 2nd defendant, who became the registered owner. There was no evidence of fraud or illegality in the transfer to the 2nd defendant, and no caveat was registered by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff breached the sale agreement and the property is now charged to a third party, specific performance cannot be granted. The plaintiff is solely to blame for the loss of the property due to his own non-compliance with the contract terms.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CIVIL SUIT NO.35 OF 2008
MWANGI NDIRANGI..............................................................PLAINTIFF
VRS
VERONICAH CHEPWAMBOK TOO..............................1ST DEFENDANT
KHATUMBA TAHERALI RAJABALI alias MOHAMED....2ND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
On 3rd March 2004, the plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the 1st defendant for the purchase of plot number 1901 (original number 1076/3, section 111, Mainland North.) The agreed purchase price was Ksh.1,100,000/=. The plaintiff paid a deposit of Ksh.650,000/= and the balance of Ksh.450,000/= was to be paid on or before 31st December, 2005. The plaintiff later found that the same plot had been sold to the 2nd defendant.
The plaintiff informed the court that he did not take possession of the land after paying the deposit, he was to pay the balance after a period of one year. In July 2006 he went to the 1st defendant and offered to pay the balance but the 1st defendant declined indicating that the plaintiff was late: He then discovered that the plot had been sold and the second defendant had already moved into the property. The plaintiff conducted a search and found that the plot had been transferred to the second defendant.
It is the plaintiff's evidence that he delayed in paying the balance of the purchase price. The plaintiff never dealt with the second defendant. The plot was transferred to the 2nd defendant in November, 2006. His prayer is that the transfer of the property to the 2nd defendant be revoked as the subsequent sell was unlawful, illegal and unprocedural. He seeks specific performance of the contract between himself and the 1st defendant.
The 1st defendant did not tender any evidence. The second defendant's evidence is that she is the owner of the suit land. She bought the land in 2006 from the first defendant. Before the transaction was done, she conducted a search and found that the 1st defendant owned the land. She bought the land for Ksh.775,000/=: The land was transferred to her and she was issued with a beacon certificate upon being registered as the owner, she charged the property with the Kenya Commercial Bank on 10th November, 2008: She has a caretaker who lives on the plot.
It is the 2nd defendant's evidence that she was not aware that someone else was claiming the same plot.
The record and evidence shows that the 1st defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant for the same plot. The 1st defendant swore an affidavit on 11th June, 2008 indicating that she was selling plot number 4308 to the 2nd defendant but the second defendant occupied plot number 4310 without her knowledge. This seems not to be correct. The sale agreement dated 22nd October, 2006 between the two defendants indicate that what was being sold was subdivision number 4310, original number 1901 section 111 in Mainland North. This seems to be same plot sold to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant did not file any defence as per the record. His advocate was served for the defence hearing but did not attend. The same applies to the plaintiff: The defence case proceeded ex-parte.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff was to pay the balance of the purchase price by 31st December 2005. The plaintiff concedes that he failed to do so. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff is to blame himself. He even failed to go back to the 1st defendant and agree in writing an extension for the payment of the balance of the purchase price. It is clear that when he went back in 2006 the 1st defendant had decided to sell the land to the 2nd defendant. Although the plaintiff claimed that he went back to the 1st defendant in July 2006, this could not be true as by that time the same transaction with the 2nd defendant had not taken off. The sale was done in October, 2006.
The current position is that the plot was duly transferred to the 2nd defendant who is the registered owner. The 2nd defendant is in possession. The property is charged to the Kenya Commercial Bank for Ksh.950,000/=. No allegations of fraud are pleaded in the plaint. The 1st defendant was within her right to sell the property to the 2nd defendant as the 1st defendant had breached the sale agreement. I do find that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance cannot be effected. The circumstances have changed. The property belongs to a third party. There was no caveat registered against the title. The plaintiff is to blame for the sale of the land to the 2nd defendant as he failed to abide by the terms of his own agreement.
In the end, I do find that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. This suit is dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi this 20th day of May, 2015.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE