[2021] KEELC 3271 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 4th Defendant. The Plaintiff had not been registered as owner of the suit land at the time of the 4th Defendant's purchase, and the Plaintiff's claim was for a portion of a different parcel that had not been subdivided. The 4th Defendant acquired the suit land as an innocent purchaser for value, had paid the full purchase price, and was registered as owner. The Plaintiff's alternative prayer was for a refund of the purchase price from the 1st to 3rd Defendants, who had admitted to selling the land to the 4th Defendant after rescinding the agreement with the Plaintiff. The court held that the...
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 3271 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick Gitonga Muguku; Defendant: Gilbert Maina Ngei; Defendant: Estate of Patrick Njuguna Njoroge; Defendant: Estate of Isaiah Kibinge Muguku; Defendant: Username Investment Limited (Ngong Crescent Limited)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 12 May 2021
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 847 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Against 4th Defendant
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Suit against 4th Defendant struck out. Costs to 4th Defendant to be borne by 1st to 3rd Defendants.
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Innocent Purchaser, Ownership of Land, Costs Award
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patrick Gitonga Muguku
Plaintiff
Gilbert Maina Ngei
Defendant
Estate of Patrick Njuguna Njoroge
Defendant
Estate of Isaiah Kibinge Muguku
Defendant
Username Investment Limited (Ngong Crescent Limited)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Against 4th Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff’s suit against the 4th Defendant discloses a reasonable cause of action and should be struck out.
- 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the 4th Defendant. The Plaintiff had not been registered as owner of the suit land at the time of the 4th Defendant's purchase, and the Plaintiff's claim was for a portion of a different parcel that had not been subdivided. The 4th Defendant acquired the suit land as an innocent purchaser for value, had paid the full purchase price, and was registered as owner. The Plaintiff's alternative prayer was for a refund of the purchase price from the 1st to 3rd Defendants, who had admitted to selling the land to the 4th Defendant after rescinding the agreement with the Plaintiff. The court held that the...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Suit against 4th Defendant struck out. Costs to 4th Defendant to be borne by 1st to 3rd Defendants.
Orders
- The Plaintiff’s suit against the 4th Defendant is struck out.
- The costs of the application are to be borne jointly by the 1st to 3rd Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment