[2018] KEELC 3854 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3854 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs had entered into valid sale agreements with the Defendants, paid the full purchase price, and were put in possession of their respective plots. The Defendants failed to transfer the plots as required under the agreements and did not testify to rebut the Plaintiffs' evidence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3854 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Mathuki; Plaintiff: George Wamae; Plaintiff: Silas Omenda; Plaintiff: Andrew Nyamwaya; Plaintiff: Lenah Muthoni Mutua; Plaintiff: Wilfred Kyeva Ndulu; Plaintiff: Agnes Kasiva Kyeva; Plaintiff: Philip Ndolo; Plaintiff: Dorothy Kalekye Mutua; Plaintiff: Vincent Mwigirua; Plaintiff: Dorothy Mbane Mulonzi; Defendant: Kingora Estates Ltd; Defendant: Peter G.N. Ng’ang’a
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 262 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' suit allowed; order of specific performance granted.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Land Sale Agreements, Transfer of Title, Subdivision of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Specific Performance Land Sale Agreements Transfer of Title Subdivision of Land

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Mathuki

Plaintiff

George Wamae

Plaintiff

Silas Omenda

Plaintiff

Andrew Nyamwaya

Plaintiff

Lenah Muthoni Mutua

Plaintiff

Wilfred Kyeva Ndulu

Plaintiff

Agnes Kasiva Kyeva

Plaintiff

Philip Ndolo

Plaintiff

Dorothy Kalekye Mutua

Plaintiff

Vincent Mwigirua

Plaintiff

Dorothy Mbane Mulonzi

Plaintiff

Kingora Estates Ltd

Defendant

Peter G.N. Ng’ang’a

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Environment Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of specific performance for transfer of their respective plots.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants breached their obligations under the sale agreements by failing to transfer the plots.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs had entered into valid sale agreements with the Defendants, paid the full purchase price, and were put in possession of their respective plots. The Defendants failed to transfer the plots as required under the agreements and did not testify to rebut the Plaintiffs' evidence. The court held that, although the Plaintiffs had not produced evidence of subdivision or Deed Plans, the obligation to effect transfer remains, subject to the necessary subdivision process. The Plaintiffs were therefore entitled to an order of specific performance compelling the Defendants to transfer the respective plots, with the Plaintiffs to appoint a licensed surveyor at the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' suit allowed; order of specific performance granted.

Orders

  • An order of specific performance for the Defendants to transfer to the Plaintiffs their respective plots excised from L.R. No. 12715/502 is issued.
  • The Plaintiffs to appoint and retain a licensed surveyor to subdivide L.R. No. 12715/502 and process the Deed Plans in respect to the portions of land that they bought at the Defendants' cost.