Ebei Korodi Cloprita v Margaret Naliaka & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1204 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that land buyers who paid and occupied land cannot lose it just because Land Control Board consent was never obtained.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the 1991 and 1996 sale agreements
The agreements were genuine and valid; the 1st defendant entered possession on the basis thereof
The 1st defendant produced two sale agreements, the first drawn and witnessed by an advocate, and had occupied the land since 1991 during the vendor's lifetime. The plaintiff admitted the 1st defendant was in occupation of 3 acres when his brother died. No evidence was adduced that the agreements were forged or procured by duress or undue influence, nor any explanation for the long occupation absent a transaction.
Effect of absence of Land Control Board consent under Section 8 of the Land Control Act
The agreements are not null and void for want of Land Control Board consent and are enforceable against the vendor's estate
Section 8 requires consent within 6 months, but the obligation to apply for consent lay on the vendor, who died before doing so. Following recent Court of Appeal decisions, where the purchaser has paid and been put in possession, the defence of nullity fails and the vendor is deemed a constructive trustee; the plaintiff, as administrator stepping into the vendor's shoes, must execute the transfer documents.
Legal principles established
#- Want of Land Control Board consent is not fatal to a controlled transaction where the vendor has received the purchase price and put the purchaser in possession; equity treats such a vendor as holding the land on a constructive trust
Court orders
#- 1.A declaration that both sale agreements dated 30/4/1991 and 21/11/1996 are valid
- 2.The plaintiff Ebei Korodi Cloprita shall execute all documents necessary to effect the subdivision of Plot No. 113 Maridadi Settlement Scheme so that 3 acres including the area occupied by the 1st defendant is excised therefrom
- 3.The plaintiff Ebei Korodi Cloprita shall execute all documents necessary to effect the transfer of the 3 acres so excised to the 1st defendant
- 4.In default, the Deputy Registrar of the Court shall execute the necessary subdivision and transfer documents
- 5.The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the main suit and the counterclaim
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land (trespass, validity of sale agreements and counterclaim); no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ebei Korodi Cloprita v Margaret Naliaka & 2 others [2018] KEELC 1204 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). E&L Case — Kitale (plaint dated 21/2/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1204/eng@2018-10-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.