[2017] KEELC 590 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including executed sale agreements, payment receipts, and the original title deed, establishing that a valid sale transaction occurred between the parties. The plaintiff had paid the full purchase price, taken possession, and fulfilled...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 590 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Sammy Kibet Chesongol; Defendant: Jacob Agengo Anzigale alias Manase Ageng’o Anzigale
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 146 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Breach of Contract, Mandatory Injunction
- 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
Sammy Kibet Chesongol
Plaintiff
Jacob Agengo Anzigale alias Manase Ageng’o Anzigale
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of specific performance compelling the defendant to transfer LR No. 5335/37 to the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to deliver completion documents and execute all necessary documents for transfer.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has fulfilled all obligations under the sale agreement and proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including executed sale agreements, payment receipts, and the original title deed, establishing that a valid sale transaction occurred between the parties. The plaintiff had paid the full purchase price, taken possession, and fulfilled all contractual obligations. The defendant, despite being served, failed to appear or contest the claim. On a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff proved entitlement to specific performance and a mandatory injunction. The court therefore granted judgment as prayed in the plaint, ordering the defendant to effect transfer of the suit property and deliver all completion...
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in prayers (a), (b), and (c) of the plaint.
Orders
- An order of specific performance compelling the defendant to effect transfer of LR No. 5335/37 to the plaintiff.
- A mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to deliver all completion documents and execute all necessary documents for transfer of LR No. 5335/37 to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 146 OF 2013
SAMMY KIBET CHESONGOL...........................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JACOB AGENGO ANZIGALE aliasMANASE AGENG’O ANZIGALE.......DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
1. In the plaint dated 28/10/2013, the plaintiff sued the defendant seeking the following orders:-
(a) An order of specific performance against the defendant to effect transfer of LR No. 5335/37 t the plaintiff.
(b) A mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to deliver all the completion documents to the plaintiff and execute all documents and acts as necessary for the effectual transfer of LR. No. 5335/37 to the plaintiff.
(c) Costs of the suit
(d) Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just to grant.
1. Though there is an affidavit of service showing that the defendant was served with the summons to enter appearance, plaint and a notice of motion in this suit, the defendant did not enter appearance or file any defence and the hearing of this suit proceededexparte on 19/10/2017.
2. According to the plaint and the evidence of the plaintiff the plaintiff’s case is that: he and the defendant entered into an agreement on 27/2/2010 for sale in which the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff all that land known as LR. No. 5335/37 measuring 3 acres situate at Kitale Municipality in Trans-Nzoia County (herein referred to as the suit property). The purchase price was agreed to be Kshs.150,000/= which the plaintiff paid in full in several installments.
3. After the execution of the said agreement the plaintiff took possession of the suit property, started farming thereon and also made several other developments thereon.
4. By the taking of possession the plaintiff avers the defendant acknowledge the plaintiff’s interest and entitlement to the suit property but the defendant has nevertheless refused, or neglected to take any actual step towards completion of the transaction todate. The plaintiff claims that he has fulfilled all his obligations under the said agreement for sale, hence this suit.
5. The plaintiff produced three agreements for sale. P. Exhibit 1 is an agreement for sale over the suit land dated 27/2/2010 between the plaintiff and the defendant. It shows that the plaintiff paid to the defendant Kshs.60,000/= upon execution of the agreement. It shows that the purchaser has been in occupation of the property and remained in the property as at the time of the agreement. The agreement is evidently signed by both parties before an Advocate and it bears the stamp of Walter Wanyonyi & Co. Advocates.
6. P. Exhibit 2 is an agreement dated 22/4/2011 between the plaintiff and the defendant which recites the sale agreement marked as P. Exhibit 1 and shows that the plaintiff paid Kshs.50,000/= to the defendant as a further instalment towards purchase of the suit land. It is evidently executed by both parties and before an Advocate. It bears the stamp of John Walter Wanyonyi Advocate. Two persons have also attested to the agreement at its foot as witnesses.
7. P. Exhibit 3 is an acknowledgement of receipt of Kshs.50,000/= paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21/5/2011. It is dated 20/5/2011. The plaintiff has further produced a Certificate of Title No. IR60383 for Land Reference No.5335/37as well as the Deed Plan No. 131727.
8. The plaintiff must prove his case even on a formal proof so as to satisfy the court that the orders sought are merited. Where he fails to do so, the court may decline to grant the orders sought.
9. The production of a copy of the original title and the deed plan and copies of agreements in respect of the suit land persuaded this court that there was indeed a transaction over the suit land between the plaintiff and the defendant.
10. I therefore find that the plaintiff has provided the necessary proof of his claim in this case on a balance of probabilities and that he is entitled to the orders sought in this suit. I therefore enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed in prayer No. (a), (b)and(c) of the plaint dated 28/10/2013.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 21stday of November, 2017.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
21/11/2017
Coram
Before – Mwangi Njoroge Judge
Court Assistant – Isabellah/Picoty
Ms. Oketch holding brief for Mr. Waweru for plaintiff
Defendant - absent
COURT
Judgment read in open court in the presence of counsel for the Plaintiff.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
21/11/2017