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 AllowedE.L.C. Case No. 976 of 2015 (formerly Civil Suit Number 2182 of 1995)· [2018] KEELC 926 (KLR)

Edith Matiba v David Njogu Gachanja [2018] KEELC 926 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 October 2018
KBK. BOR
1,513 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court split the four disputed Ruiru plots evenly: the buyer kept two he paid for, while the estate got the other two.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (K. Bor, J) determined a first-instance land dispute over four parcels - Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 7/3, 7/81, 7/82 and 7/154 - originally filed as Civil Suit No. 2182 of 1995 and transferred to ELC. The plaintiff, administrator of the estate of Wamere Hellen Mwangi Dadet, a director and coordinator of Varsityville Limited, claimed the defendant, an advocate retained by the company for conveyancing, had fraudulently transferred the four plots to himself. The defendant denied the claim, asserting he purchased two plots and that the properties had been transferred to him pursuant to a decree in RMCC No. 760 of 1994, which had never been set aside; by consent that issue was abandoned and the matter tried on a single agreed issue - whether the defendant purchased the four plots. Evidence included a receipt for Kshs 40,000, a handwritten director's note dated 3/2/1987 acknowledging payment for two additional plots, and the company's 'Order of Payments' list bearing two plot numbers against the defendant's name though no payment amount. The deceased's affidavit admitted the defendant bought two plots but never completed balloting. The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant paid for only two plots. It ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to two plots and the defendant may retain two, with each party bearing its own costs given partial success.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant purchased all four suit plots from Varsityville Limited

Holding

He purchased only two; the other two belong to the estate

Reasoning

The defendant, an advocate who conducted the conveyancing and was related to a director, kept no proper records. The late plaintiff's affidavit admitted he bought two plots, and the 'Order of Payments' list bore two plot numbers against his name though no payment amount. The handwritten note and receipt supported payment for two plots only. On a balance of probabilities the court held the defendant entitled to retain two plots and the estate to the other two.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Ownership disputes over land sold under a subdivided parcel are determined on a balance of probabilities on the documentary evidence of payment and allocation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff is entitled to two of the suit plots
  2. 2.The Defendant is entitled to retain two plots
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (first-instance suit transferred from the High Court/Chief Magistrate's civil suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Edith Matiba v David Njogu Gachanja [2018] KEELC 926 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). E.L.C. Case No. 976 of 2015 (formerly Civil Suit Number 2182 of 1995). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/926/eng@2018-10-11

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