Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowed· [2017] KEELC 3062 (KLR)

Joseph Githoro Boro v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited [2017] KEELC 3062 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 March 2017
SOS. Okong'o
836 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court gave a plot buyer full ownership after the allotting company refused to complete the transfer, awarding a declaration, forced transfer, injunction and costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued for a declaration that Plot No. F 168 Block 105/1290 (share certificate No. 4059) belonged to him, an order compelling the Defendant to execute a transfer of lease, and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from allocating or transferring the property to third parties or interfering with his occupation. The Plaintiff averred that the Defendant allotted him the suit property, that he paid all requisite charges, was shown the boundaries by the Defendant's surveyor, took possession and developed the land, yet the Defendant refused to transfer the property and purported to allocate it to a third party who deposited building materials on it. The Defendant entered appearance through Ngata Kamau & Co. Advocates but never filed a defence, and its advocates did not attend the hearing to cross-examine the Plaintiff and his witness, Cyrus Kangethe Githoro, the Plaintiff's son, who corroborated his evidence. The court found it undisputed that the Plaintiff was a shareholder, was allotted the plot, paid all requisite charges and fees, took possession and developed the property with the Defendant's permission. An instrument of transfer prepared by the Defendant was signed by the Plaintiff but got lost in the Defendant's offices, and the Defendant refused to prepare a fresh instrument even after the Plaintiff paid Kshs.15,000/=. With no defence or explanation tendered, the court held the Defendant's conduct unjustified and a breach of the allotment agreement, and entered judgment for the Plaintiff on a balance of probabilities, granting the declaration, the order for execution of the transfer of lease, the permanent injunction and costs against the Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff proved his claim on a balance of probabilities

Holding

The Plaintiff proved his case; all key facts were undisputed and the Defendant filed no defence

Reasoning

It was undisputed that the Plaintiff was a shareholder under share certificate No. 4059, was allotted Plot F168, paid all requisite charges, took possession and developed the property with the Defendant's permission. The transfer instrument prepared by the Defendant was lost in its offices and the Defendant refused to prepare another even after the Plaintiff paid Kshs. 15,000/=. With no defence or explanation, the inaction was an unjustified breach of the allotment agreement.

p. 3
02

Whether the Defendant's failure to transfer the suit property was a breach of the allotment agreement

Holding

The Defendant's refusal to transfer was unjustified and constituted a breach of the agreement evidenced by the letter of allocation dated 28th November 1982

Reasoning

The Defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under the letter of allocation despite full payment. An instrument of transfer was prepared and signed by the Plaintiff but got lost in the Defendant's offices; the Defendant declined to prepare a fresh one despite payment of Kshs. 15,000/=. Filing no defence, the Defendant tendered no explanation, so the court could only conclude the conduct was an unjustified breach.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a defendant fails to file a defence and offers no explanation for non-performance, the court may conclude on the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence that the defendant's conduct is an unjustified breach of the agreement.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.A declaration that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of Plot No. F 168 Block 105/1290
  2. 2.An order that the Defendant execute a transfer of lease in respect of Plot No. 168 Block 105/1290 in favour of the Plaintiff
  3. 3.A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants or employees from allocating or transferring Plot No. F. 168 Block 105/1290 to third parties and/or interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful occupation
  4. 4.Costs of the suit to be paid by the Defendant
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit; no specific constitutional or statutory provision invoked in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Joseph Githoro Boro v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited [2017] KEELC 3062 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3062/eng@2017-03-31

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