Abdul Jalil Yafai v Farid Jalil Mohamed [2014] KEELC 232 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that only the parties who signed a written agreement can change it, and ordered two family-owned plots sold with proceeds shared equally.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the unilateral amendment to the agreement of 18th December 2008
The amendment introducing plot number 992 was improper and inconsequential
Although the advocate claimed the Defendant authorized the changes by phone, which the Defendant denied, the court held that only the parties who signed a written agreement can amend it. The amendments made in the Plaintiff's favour, even with alleged phone approval, could not alter the signed agreement since they were not assented to in the manner required for written contracts.
Whether the court could infer from the agreement's terms that plot 992, being registered and developed, was the property intended for sale
No - the court cannot speculate on the parties' intention; the agreement as signed referred to plot 374
The court held that the word 'encumbered' has no fixed definition and an unregistered plot can be encumbered or jointly owned by arrangement. Absent evidence of what 'development' entailed, the court could not infer that the parties meant plot 992, and refused to rewrite the contract.
Entitlement to the jointly registered property Kilifi/Jimba/992
Since both parties contributed and neither proved actual monetary contributions or a valuation, a just order was a sale and equal division of proceeds
The circumstances of the 2001 joint registration were unknown, but the Plaintiff proved remitting Kshs 9,000,000 and the Defendant showed he had invested time and resources. Neither party produced a valuation or proof of actual contributions, so equal sharing of sale proceeds was the just outcome, with the 2008 agreement on plot 374 enforced as signed.
Legal principles established
#- Changes to a written agreement can only be made by the parties who signed it, not by an agent unilaterally or by one party
- Courts cannot re-write contracts for parties or speculate about the parties' intention
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff, Abdul Jalil Yafai, to sell parcel of land number Kilifi/Jimba/374 and to utilize the proceeds in liquidating the loan facility owed to his bankers and any balance of the said proceeds to be shared equally between him and the Defendant
- 2.The Plaintiff and the Defendant to jointly sell land known as Kilifi Jimba/992 after conducting a valuation and the proceeds of the sale to be shared equally between themselves
- 3.The costs of valuing and selling of Kilifi Jimba/992 to be shared equally by both parties
- 4.Each party to bear his own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court over land and contract disputes (consolidated suits)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mbijiwe v Muthuri[2023] KEELC 21515 (KLR)8 Nov 2023followed
- Nordic Aviation Capital A/S v Western Airways Limited & Douglas Odhiambo[2018] KEHC 10073 (KLR)11 May 2018
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdul Jalil Yafai v Farid Jalil Mohamed [2014] KEELC 232 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Malindi Civil Suit (consolidated with HCCC No. 15 of 2013 (OS)). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/232/eng@2014-09-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.