Andrew Kiprop Ronoh v Vitalis Sunguti Ligare & another [2018] KECA 559 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to force completion of an agricultural land sale because Land Control Board consent was never obtained, awarding only money damages plus interest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether specific performance should have been granted despite lack of Land Control Board consent
No. The sale of agricultural land without Land Control Board consent is void under Section 6(1) of the Land Control Act, and equity must follow the statute; the penalty clause gave the appellant an adequate remedy.
The Court applied Halsbury's principles that specific performance is discretionary and supplementary to legal remedies. Section 6(1) renders transactions affecting agricultural land void without consent. The appellant admitted he never took possession and had expended nothing further on the contract; the decretal sum was executable against the same land. The agreement contained a 20% penalty clause, and a party cannot obtain both the penalty money and specific relief. Damages were therefore adequate and the discretion to refuse specific performance was judicially exercised.
Entitlement to interest on the award
The trial Judge erred only in failing to award interest claimed on the amounts awarded; interest at court rates was granted from the date of the judgment below.
The appellant had pleaded interest as part of his alternative prayer for restitution. The Court found the learned Judge failed to award interest which was claimed, and corrected this lacuna while otherwise affirming the judgment below.
Legal principles established
#- A transaction affecting agricultural land without Land Control Board consent is void, and where consent is absent equity follows the Land Control Act; specific performance will be refused where damages under a penalty clause are an adequate remedy.
- Where a contract contains a penalty clause, the party entitled to performance may obtain either the money payable under the clause or specific relief, but not both.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed save that the award of Shs.3,250,000/= and 20% of the purchase price shall carry interest at court rates from 24th April 2015.
- 2.No order of costs as between the appellant and the 1st respondent.
- 3.No orders as to costs as between the appellant and the 2nd respondent.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya, Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- ELC No. 176 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal under the applicable appellate statute (appeal as of right from the High Court); no specific constitutional provision cited.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Andrew Kiprop Ronoh v Vitalis Sunguti Ligare & another [2018] KECA 559 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/559/eng@2018-05-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.