Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELC 1830 (KLR)

Kingdom Capital Africa Limited v Intra Africa Assurance Limited [2017] KEELC 1830 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 September 2017
KBK. BOR
433 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court froze land dealings in a Kshs. 50 million property sale dispute but refused to force completion without proof the buyer paid, sending the case to a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff moved the Environment and Land Court in Nairobi by an application dated 21/7/2016 seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the Defendant to complete a sale transaction under an agreement dated 13/4/2010 within 14 days, failing which a vesting order in respect of L.R. No. 8784/10 and L.R. No. 8784/11; the Plaintiff also sought a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from breaching the agreement or dealing with the Suit Properties. The application, supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff's Director Gerald Macharia Maina, was grounded on the contention that the agreement was valid and binding, that the Plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations and was ready to pay the balance of the purchase price, and that the Defendant had neglected to complete despite reminders. The agreement provided for a purchase price of Kshs. 50 million, with Kshs. 30 million payable on execution and the balance on the completion date or upon registration of the transfer, completion being 30 days from the agreement date. The Defendant was served but filed no documents. The court, per K. Bor J, declined to grant the mandatory injunction and vesting order, noting there was no evidence that the Kshs. 30 million had been paid, and directed the Plaintiff to set the suit down for hearing. However, it restrained dealings with the Suit Properties pending determination, and awarded the Plaintiff the costs of the application. Judgment was dated and delivered at Nairobi on 21 September 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a mandatory injunction could issue to compel specific performance of the sale agreement before full hearing

Holding

Refused; the matter required a full hearing.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement over the Suit Properties for Kshs. 50 million. However, the court noted that no evidence was placed before it showing payment of the Kshs. 30 million (60% of the purchase price) said to be payable on execution. The Defendant did not file any documents despite service. In these circumstances the court was unwilling to grant the final and mandatory relief sought at the interlocutory stage and instead directed the Plaintiff to set the suit down for hearing.

p. 2
02

Whether to restrain dealings with the Suit Properties pending determination of the suit

Holding

Granted.

Reasoning

The court found it just and meet to preserve the Suit Properties by restraining the Defendant from dealing with them pending the hearing and determination of the suit, since the Defendant had not filed any response notwithstanding service of the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A temporary injunction restraining dealings with suit property may issue pending hearing where the applicant shows a prima facie basis, but a mandatory injunction will not issue at an interlocutory stage on unproven allegations.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A temporary injunction restraining dealings with the Suit Properties pending hearing and determination of the suit
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to set down the suit for hearing
  3. 3.The Plaintiff to have the costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the judgment; first-instance civil suit before the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kingdom Capital Africa Limited v Intra Africa Assurance Limited [2017] KEELC 1830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1830/eng@2017-09-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.