[1997] KECA 283 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction because there was no evidence of privity of contract between him and the registered owner of the disputed property, Halai Developers Ltd. The court found that the appellant's payment was made to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] KECA 283 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wilfred Oanda Kirochi; Respondent: David Pius Mugambi; Respondent: Abida Ali t/a "Ali & Associates"; Respondent: Halai Developers Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 76 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Injunction
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Privity of Contract, Specific Performance, Ownership Disputes
- 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
Wilfred Oanda Kirochi
Appellant
David Pius Mugambi
Respondent
Abida Ali t/a "Ali & Associates"
Respondent
Halai Developers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to an injunction restraining dealings with the disputed property.
- 2 Whether there was privity of contract between the appellant and the registered owner (3rd respondent).
- 3 Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction because there was no evidence of privity of contract between him and the registered owner of the disputed property, Halai Developers Ltd. The court found that the appellant's payment was made to the advocates of the 1st and 2nd respondents, who were not the registered owners, and that the appellant did not demonstrate that the 3rd respondent was a party to the agreement. Without privity of contract, the appellant could not compel specific performance or obtain an injunction against the registered owner. The court further noted that any remedy available to the appellant would...
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OMOLO & LAKHA, JJ.A. & BOSIRE, AG. J.A.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 1997
BETWEEN
WILFRED OANDA KIROCHI..............................APPELLANT
AND
DAVID PIUS MUGAMBI ABIDA ALI t/a "ALI & ASSOCIATES"
HALAI DEVELOPERS LIMITED.....................RESPONDENTS
(Appeal from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Keiwua J) dated 14th July, 1994
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 636 OF 1994)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
We see no valid reason to warrant our interfering with the learned judge's refusal to grant to this appellant the injunction he sought in the superior court. The dispute is over property known as L.R. NO. 209/10721/55 at Halai Estate, Nairobi South. That property is currently registered in the name of HALAI DEVELOPERS LTD ., the 3rd respondent. The appellant's case appears to us to be that he paid KShs.750,000/= as part-payment to purchase the property in dispute. According to the appellant, he was buying the property from the 1st and 2nd respondents who in turn were buying it from the 3rd respondent. The money was in fact paid to M/s Mugambi & Ali Advocates and the appellant's case would appear to be that the firm was buying the property and another one from the 3rd respondent. We know that the main case is still pending in the High Court. But it seems to us on the material on record, that at the hearing of the case pending in the High Court, the appellant would have to prove that the 3rd respondent was a party to the agreement between the 1st and 2nd respondent, on the one hand and the appellant on the other. We are unable to conclude from the material on record that the appellant established, prima facie, that there was privity of contract between him and the 3rd respondent. If the 3rd respondent cannot be compelled to specifically perform the contract, then no such remedy can be awarded against the 1st and 2nd respondent because they are not the registered owner of the disputed property. The learned judge thought that the appellant did not appear to know who the seller was.
We think there is evidence to support that view and we cannot interfere with him. It may be that the appellant would be entitled to the refund of the money he paid but we do not think that entitles him to an injunction at this stage. That being our view of the matter, this appeal fails and we order that it be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of October, 1997.
R. S. C. OMOLO
............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A. A. LAKHA
.............................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. E. O. BOSIRE
...................................
AG. JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR