[2020] KEELC 3359 (KLR)
The court held that a Sale Agreement is a contract between the parties and, for the purposes of land disposition, it is the prescribed transfer form that is required to be stamped and registered, not the Sale Agreement itself. The court found that the Plaintiff's objection was based on a technicality that does not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3359 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Parikien Ole Naikuni Oseur; Defendant: Agricultural Finance Corporation; Defendant: Nkosera Kilelu Sirere
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 528 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Objection Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- objection dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Stamp Duty Requirements, Sale Agreements, Land Disposition, Registration of Instruments
- 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
Parikien Ole Naikuni Oseur
Plaintiff
Agricultural Finance Corporation
Defendant
Nkosera Kilelu Sirere
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Objection Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Sale Agreement dated 5th October, 2000 is inadmissible as evidence for lack of stamping by the Land Registry.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that a Sale Agreement is a contract between the parties and, for the purposes of land disposition, it is the prescribed transfer form that is required to be stamped and registered, not the Sale Agreement itself. The court found that the Plaintiff's objection was based on a technicality that does not render the Sale Agreement inadmissible. The court emphasized that the law does not require the Sale Agreement to be stamped by the Land Registry for it to be admissible as evidence, and that the Plaintiff's reliance on this technicality is contrary to the principles of substantive justice as enshrined in Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed
Orders
- The Plaintiff's objection to the admissibility of the Sale Agreement is dismissed.
- Costs will be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KAJIADO
ELC CASE NO. 528 OF 2017
(Formerly Nairobi Milimani ELC Case No. 773 of 2016)
PARIKIEN OLE NAIKUNI OSEUR...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION....................1ST DEFENDANT
NKOSERA KILELU SIRERE.................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
What is before Court for determination is an Objection raised by the Plaintiff in respect to the 2nd Defendant’s production of a Sale Agreement executed between the Plaintiff and himself. The Plaintiff insists the Sale Agreement dated 5th October, 2000 cannot be produced as an exhibit since it was not stamped by the Land Registry in accordance with section 19 of the Stamp Duty Act. He contends that the said document is not admissible.
The 2nd Defendant opposed the objection and stated that under section 20 of the Stamp Duty Act, it allows for post stamping of a Sale Agreement and an affected party can pay a fine for it. Further, failure to stamp does not invalidate a Sale Agreement. He reiterated that the Plaintiff sought to rely on technicalities.
The only issue for determination is whether the Sale Agreement dated the 5th October, 2000 can been deemed inadmissible since it was not stamped by the Land Registry.
Section 19 (1) (a) and (b) of the Stamp Duty Act provides that:’ Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section and to the provisions of sections 20 and 21, no instrument chargeable with stamp duty shall be received in evidence in any proceedings whatsoever, except—
(a) in criminal proceedings; and
(b) in civil proceedings by a collector to recover stamp duty, unless it is duly stamped.’
Under the repealed Registered Land Act which was the law in place at the time the suit land was registered in the 2nd Defendant’s name, it provides under section 108 as follows:’ (1) ‘Every disposition of land, a lease or a charge shall be effected by an instrument in the prescribed form or in such other form as the Registrar may in any particular case approve, and every person shall use a printed form issued by the Registrar unless the Registrar otherwise permits.(2) Leases and charges shall be presented for registration in triplicate.(3) Instruments shall contain a true statement of the amount or value of the purchase price or loan or other consideration (if any), and an acknowledgement of the receipt of the consideration.’
Further section 43 of the Land Registration Act provides that:’ ‘ (1) Every instrument effecting a disposition of land under this Act shall be in the form prescribed in relation to that disposition under this Act or any other written law. (2) No instrument effecting any disposition of an interest in land under this Act shall operate to sell or assign land or create, transfer or otherwise affect any land, lease or charge until it has been registered in accordance with the laws relating to the registration of instruments affecting the land in respect of which the disposition has been made. (3) The provisions of subsection (2), shall not apply to any disposition that is exempt from registration. (4) This section shall not apply to or affect the operation of any contract for a disposition under this Act.’
From a reading of these two provision, it is evident that an instrument for disposition of land has to be in the prescribed form. In my considered view I hold that a Sale Agreement is a contract as per the provisions of section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act but for disposition of land, a prescribed transfer form which is duly executed is what is presented for registration and stamped in accordance with the Stamp Duty Act. Further, It is trite that in disposition of land Stamp Duty is charged on transfer form and not on the sale Agreement.
Based on my analysis above , I beg to differ with the Plaintiff that the Sale Agreement is inadmissible as it was not stamped at the Land Registry. I opine that the said Sale Agreement was a contract between the parties herein. I find that the Plaintiff is merely seeking to rely on technicalities which is a defeated avenue in accordance with the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.
It is against the foregoing that I proceed to dismiss the objection.
Costs will be in the cause.
Dated signed and delivered in open court at Kajiado this 26th day of February, 2020.
CHRISTINE OCHIENG
JUDGE