[2010] KEHC 920 (KLR)
The court found that the sale agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for a portion of LR Bungoma/Kabisi/539 was not completed as the defendant failed to pay the full purchase price and no land control board consent was obtained. Under the Land Control Act, the transaction became null and void after six...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 920 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Tom Peter Macheso Wanjala; Defendant: Everlyne Wangia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 114 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. Counterclaim dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Land Sale Agreements, Land Control Board Consent, Eviction Orders, Contract Nullity
- 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
Tom Peter Macheso Wanjala
Plaintiff
Everlyne Wangia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sale agreement between the plaintiff and defendant is null and void for lack of land control board consent.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an eviction order against the defendant for occupying the suit property.
- 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim has merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sale agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for a portion of LR Bungoma/Kabisi/539 was not completed as the defendant failed to pay the full purchase price and no land control board consent was obtained. Under the Land Control Act, the transaction became null and void after six months. The defendant did not contest the plaintiff's evidence or prosecute her counterclaim. The plaintiff proved his case on a balance of probability and was entitled to the orders sought, including eviction of the defendant and costs.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. Counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The sale agreement between the plaintiff and defendant is declared null and void for want of land control board consent.
- The defendant, her agents or servants, are ordered to vacate the 1 acre portion of LR Bungoma/Kabisi/539 forthwith.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLICOFKENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KITALE
CIVIL CASE NO. 114 OF 2007
TOM PETER MACHESO WANJALA…………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EVERLYNE WANGIA………………………………..DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
This suit was filed on 13th July, 2007 the plaintiff is seeking for an order of eviction against the defendant her agents, or servants occupying 1 acre a portion of LR Bungoma/Kabisi/539 pursuant to an agreement dated 22nd December, 2000 which the plaintiff seeks to be declared null and void for lack of the necessary land control board consents. The Summons to Enter Appearance were served upon the defendant who entered appearance in person filed a defence and counter claim on 31st August, 2007. Counsel for the plaintiff filed a list of issues and documents being the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The defendant was served with a hearing notice as per the affidavit of service filed on 13th October, 2010. The defendant did not attend court thus no evidence was tendered in regard to the counter claim which is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his case he testified that on or about 22nd December, 2000 he entered into an agreement with the defendant to sell a portion of his property known as Bungoma/Kabisi/539 at an agreed price of Ksh. 155,000/= the defendant paid a sum of 135,000/= leaving a balance of Ksh. 20,000 which the defendant has failed and neglected to pay. The plaintiff did not obtain the consent of the land control board due to the plaintiff’s failure to complete the purchase price thus the transaction became null and void after 6 months. The plaintiff urged the court to grant the orders prayed in the plaint with costs. The plaintiff’s claim is not controverted he produced the sale agreement to support his claim that the defendant was unable to complete the purchase price as per the agreement. There was also no consent from the land control board for the subdivision and transfer of the property sold which lapsed after six months since the agreement was entered into. The plaintiff has been able to prove his case on a balance of probability.
Accordingly, judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint. The plaintiff shall also have the costs of this suit.
JUDGMENT READ AND SIGNED THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE