[2017] KEELC 3421 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3421 (KLR)

The court found that although the Plaintiff and Defendants had a series of acknowledged payments constituting an agreement for the sale of a portion of land, there was no formal written agreement and no evidence of possession by the Plaintiff. The agreement required Land Control Board consent, which was not obtained within the statutory six months from the last acknowledgment of payment. As a result, the agreement became void under the Land Control Act. The Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to specific performance but was entitled to a refund of the purchase price paid, as provided by statute. The Defendants' failure to defend the suit did not alter the legal position, and the...

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3421 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: St. Teresa ACK Nanga Church; Defendant: Simon Owino Odinga; Defendant: Stephen Odhiambo Odinga; Defendant: Joseph Odhoch Odinga; Defendant: Martin Ogonyo Odinga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 March 2017
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 239 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Land Sale Agreements, Land Control Board Consent, Recovery of Purchase Price
Source Language
English
Land and Property Specific Performance Land Sale Agreements Land Control Board Consent Recovery of Purchase Price

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St. Teresa ACK Nanga Church

Plaintiff

Simon Owino Odinga

Defendant

Stephen Odhiambo Odinga

Defendant

Joseph Odhoch Odinga

Defendant

Martin Ogonyo Odinga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there exists a valid sale agreement for land between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
  2. 2 What the terms of the sale agreement are.
  3. 3 Whether there has been breach of the sale agreement, and if so, by which party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the Plaintiff and Defendants had a series of acknowledged payments constituting an agreement for the sale of a portion of land, there was no formal written agreement and no evidence of possession by the Plaintiff. The agreement required Land Control Board consent, which was not obtained within the statutory six months from the last acknowledgment of payment. As a result, the agreement became void under the Land Control Act. The Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to specific performance but was entitled to a refund of the purchase price paid, as provided by statute. The Defendants' failure to defend the suit did not alter the legal position, and the...

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants for payment of Ksh.1,065,000.
  • Defendants to pay costs of the suit to the Plaintiff.