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 excerpt· [2018] KEELC 132 (KLR)

Susan Kagwiria Ringera & another v Nantie Homes Limited [2018] KEELC 132 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2018
BEB M Eboso
149 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If a land seller delays giving you your lease and you're forced to sue, the court can order them to pay your legal costs even after they comply.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
In this first-instance decision of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi, the court dealt with an Originating Summons arising from a contract for the sale of land. The plaintiffs' case was that they took out the suit because the defendant/respondent failed to provide them with the lease despite having paid the purchase price in tandem with the contract. Upon the filing of the suit, the respondent moved to register and avail the lease, effectively curing the default. The plaintiffs further evidenced that they had incurred legal costs as a consequence of the respondent's default, and there was no evidence controverting that account. On that basis, the court entered judgment for costs in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants against the defendant/respondent, directing that the costs be taxed by the taxing officer of the court in the manner prescribed by law. The judgment was delivered by B M Eboso J on 20th December 2018 at Nairobi, with Mr Gaya holding brief for Mr Nduati for the 1st and 2nd applicants. No cases or statutes are cited in the excerpt, and the disposition is limited to an award of costs; the substantive relief relating to the lease appears to have been overtaken by the respondent's post-filing compliance.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to costs following the respondent's failure to provide the lease

Holding

Judgment for costs entered for the plaintiffs because the respondent's default was uncontroverted.

Reasoning

The plaintiffs demonstrated that they filed the Originating Summons because the respondent failed to provide the lease despite payment of the purchase price in tandem with the contract. After the suit was filed, the respondent moved to register and avail the lease, and the plaintiffs incurred legal costs. The court found no evidence controverting the plaintiffs' account and therefore entered judgment for costs, to be taxed by the taxing officer.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who incurs legal costs as a result of another party's default in performing a contract is entitled to judgment for those costs where the default evidence is uncontroverted.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for costs in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants against the defendant/respondent
  2. 2.Costs to be taxed by the taxing officer of the court in the manner prescribed by law
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in the excerpt

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Susan Kagwiria Ringera & another v Nantie Homes Limited [2018] KEELC 132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/132/eng@2018-12-20

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