Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2018] KEELC 3899 (KLR)

Kemei & another v Kirui (Environment & Land Case 51 of 2016) [2018] KEELC 3899 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
6 April 2018
1,323 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court threw out a buyer's land claim because no Land Control Board consent was obtained, confirming only the purchase price can be refunded.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant filed a Notice of Motion dated February 21, 2018 under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking striking out of the plaintiffs' suit. He argued that the sale of the agricultural land parcel KERICHO/SORGET/KALYET/1/160, agreed on June 3, 2005, was never validated by consent of the Land Control Board within the statutory six months and was therefore null and void under section 6(1) of the Land Control Act, and that he had already refunded the purchase price following criminal proceedings in Molo CM Criminal Case No. 2102 of 2016. The plaintiffs opposed, asserting they were placed in possession, that the defendant later sold the property to a third party and evicted them, and that the refund agreement included costs and interest to be taxed in the suit. The court framed three issues: validity of the transaction for want of consent, entitlement to damages, and striking out. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in David Sironga Ole Tukai v Francis Arap Muge, the court held that a controlled transaction lacking consent is void for all purposes and cannot ground a claim for general damages; equity cannot override the clear statutory provisions. The only remedy was recovery of the purchase price under section 7, already paid, and further payments would breach section 22. The application was allowed and the suit struck out with costs to the defendant, dated and delivered at Kericho on April 6, 2018 by J.M Onyango, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the sale of agricultural land without Land Control Board consent

Holding

The sale was void ab initio under section 6(1) of the Land Control Act for want of consent within six months, and equity cannot be invoked to salvage it.

Reasoning

The court found it common ground that no consent was obtained within the six-month statutory period, so the sale became null and void. Relying on the Court of Appeal in David Sironga Ole Tukai, the court held that express statutory provisions cannot be overridden under the guise of equity. The sole statutory remedy is recovery of the purchase price under section 7, already effected, and further payments would breach section 22.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15

Holding

Yes; the suit disclosed no viable claim as the transaction was void and the purchase price refunded, so it was struck out with costs.

Reasoning

Since the transaction was void and the plaintiffs' only remedy (recovery of the purchase price) had been satisfied, the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The defendant's Notice of Motion dated February 21, 2018 therefore had merit and the suit was struck out with costs to the defendant.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A controlled dealing in agricultural land without Land Control Board consent within six months is void for all purposes and cannot found a claim for general damages; the only remedy is recovery of the purchase price as a debt.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15
  • Land Control Actsection 6(1)
  • Land Control Actsection 7
  • Land Control Actsection 22
  • Development and Use of Land (Planning) Regulations, 1961

Cases cited (5)

  • David Sironga Ole Tukai V Francis Arap Muge and 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Macharia Mwangi Maina & 87 Others V Davidson Mwangi
    CA No 26 & 27 of 2011 (Nyeri)
  • Karuri V Gitura
  • Simiyu V Watambamala
    (1985) KLR 852
  • Wamukota V Donati
    (1987) KLR 280
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction; application under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kemei & another v Kirui (Environment & Land Case 51 of 2016) [2018] KEELC 3899 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3899/eng@2018-04-06

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