[2021] KEELC 3271 (KLR)

[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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff’s suit against the 4th Defendant discloses a reasonable cause of action and should be struck out.
  2. 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.