[2016] KEELC 766 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 766 (KLR)

The court found that the parties had freely entered into a consent agreement settling the dispute. The consent provided for the defendant to refund the plaintiff the sum of Kshs. 400,000, being the purchase price, and for the rescission of the sale agreement. As security for payment, an inhibition was to be placed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 766 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Vincent Mugambi Ikaiga; Defendant: Esther Njoki Kimathi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case 27of 20 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment on Consent
Outcome
Suit marked as settled by consent; agreement rescinded; refund ordered; security for payment provided; parties to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Rescission of Contract, Refund of Purchase Price
Source Language
en
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Specific Performance Breach of Contract Rescission of Contract Refund of Purchase Price

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincent Mugambi Ikaiga

Plaintiff

Esther Njoki Kimathi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment on Consent

  1. 1 Whether the agreement for sale of land parcel Abogeta/L-Chure/970 should be specifically performed or rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the purchase price and damages for breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether an inhibition should be placed as security for payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties had freely entered into a consent agreement settling the dispute. The consent provided for the defendant to refund the plaintiff the sum of Kshs. 400,000, being the purchase price, and for the rescission of the sale agreement. As security for payment, an inhibition was to be placed over a specified land parcel, to be lifted upon payment. The court adopted the consent as its order, finding it properly executed and agreed upon by both parties and their advocates. The court thus enforced the terms of the consent, including the refund, rescission, and security measures, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Court Disposition

Suit marked as settled by consent; agreement rescinded; refund ordered; security for payment provided; parties to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to refund plaintiff Kshs. 400,000 on or before 31st August, 2016.
  • Agreement for sale of land dated 20th January, 2014 rescinded.