Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC. Case No. 606 of 2016 (Originating Summons)· [2017] KEELC 1843 (KLR)

John Okuna Ogango v Dolores N. Collins & another [2017] KEELC 1843 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 September 2017
2,460 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped a land seller from cancelling a Kshs 52 million sale because she hadn't first delivered the documents required under the contract.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff contracted on 16/7/2015 to buy Unit No. 2 on L.R. No. 3734/220 from the 1st Defendant for Kshs. 52 Million, with a deposit of Kshs. 15,320,000 payable directly to the Developer to settle a debt the 1st Defendant owed it, which the Plaintiff paid. Under clause 6, completion was to occur 45 days from the issuance by Nairobi City County of a Certificate of Occupation. The 2nd Defendant, the registered proprietor, gave an irrevocable undertaking to transfer the property to the Plaintiff by long-term lease and furnish the clause 9 completion documents. The Developer undertook to finish construction within 90 days of receiving the deposit, completing on 30/11/2015. The 1st Defendant's advocates issued a 21-day notice to complete on 19/1/2016 and purported to rescind on 29/2/2016, threatening forfeiture of 10%. The 2nd Defendant declined to prepare the lease, citing unpaid fees, and later claimed to be a mere contractor. The court held the rescission invalid because the 1st Defendant had not completed her part of the agreement and the notice did not comply with clause 11; the Plaintiff was entitled to the Certificate of Occupation and completion documents before paying the balance. The 2nd Defendant was found in breach of its irrevocable undertaking and ordered to transfer the property by long lease and furnish the completion documents within 30 days; the Plaintiff was to pay the balance within three days of receiving those documents. The Plaintiff received liquidated damages of 10% under clause 11(b) and costs against the 1st Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Defendant could rescind the sale agreement

Holding

The purported rescission was invalid because the 1st Defendant had not completed her part of the agreement and the notice did not comply with clause 11.

Reasoning

Clause 9 placed responsibility for providing the completion documents, including the Certificate of Occupation, on the 1st Defendant. The Certificate of Practical Completion forwarded on 6/1/2016 was not the certificate contemplated by clause 6. Securing the irrevocable undertaking alone was insufficient. The clause 11 notice required the vendor to confirm readiness to complete in all respects, which she had not done.

p. 4
02

Whether the 2nd Defendant breached its irrevocable undertaking

Holding

Yes; the 2nd Defendant failed to transfer the Suit Property by way of a long lease and to furnish the clause 9 completion documents.

Reasoning

The 2nd Defendant was the registered proprietor of L.R. No. 3734/220 and gave its consent and an irrevocable undertaking witnessed on 22/4/2015. It received the deposit of Kshs. 15,320,000. Its claim to be a mere contractor was rejected; the excuse relating to unpaid advocates' fees was unsupported by the agreement, which provided each party bears its own advocates' charges.

p. 4
03

Whether the 1st Defendant could forfeit 10% of the purchase price

Holding

No; the Plaintiff was instead entitled to liquidated damages of 10% under clause 11(b), and the vendor had to refund monies paid above the 10% deposit.

Reasoning

Clause 11 provided that on default the vendor would refund monies paid over and above the 10% deposit. The Plaintiff had paid 20% deposit plus further sums, which the 1st Defendant did not refund within seven days of the purported termination. The suggestion that the Plaintiff sue for recovery of the balance was contrary to the parties' agreement.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A vendor who has not furnished the completion documents required of her under clause 9 of the sale agreement cannot validly issue a completion notice or rescind under clause 11.
  • A registered proprietor who gives an irrevocable undertaking to transfer the property directly to the purchaser and to supply completion documents is bound by that undertaking even though not a party to the sale agreement.
  • A party cannot make payment of its own advocates' fees a condition precedent to performing an obligation the agreement placed on it, where the agreement provided each party bears its own costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Declaration that the 1st Defendant was not entitled to rescind the sale agreement as she purported to do
  2. 2.Finding that the 2nd Defendant is in breach of its irrevocable undertaking
  3. 3.The 2nd Defendant to transfer the Suit Property to the Plaintiff by way of a long lease and furnish the completion documents listed at clause 9 of the sale agreement, including the Certificate of Occupation, within 30 days of the date of the judgment
  4. 4.The Plaintiff to pay the balance of the purchase price to the 1st Defendant within three days of receiving the lease and all the completion documents from the 2nd Defendant
  5. 5.The Plaintiff awarded liquidated damages assessed at 10% of the purchase price from the 1st Defendant pursuant to clause 11(b) of the sale agreement
  6. 6.Costs of the suit to be borne by the 1st Defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to the sale and transfer of land (suit property L.R. No. 3734/220, Unit No. 2)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Okuna Ogango v Dolores N. Collins & another [2017] KEELC 1843 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC. Case No. 606 of 2016 (Originating Summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1843/eng@2017-09-18

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