Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 292 (KLR)

Gladys Wanjiru Kamau v Edwin Njeru Gichovi [2019] KEELC 292 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 December 2019
2,316 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land buyer who paid and stayed ready to complete won a court order forcing the seller to transfer the property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 10th February 2017 under which the Defendant agreed to sell L.R Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 2/1045 for Kshs.1,200,000, with completion fixed for 30th April 2017. She sought specific performance, an order compelling the Defendant to obtain Land Control Board consent (or in default that the Deputy Registrar sign the application), and damages for breach. The Defendant, though served and having entered appearance through Olouch–Awino & Company Advocates, filed no defence, and the suit proceeded to formal proof. The Plaintiff (PW1) testified that she paid Kshs.600,000 as deposit, a further Kshs.200,000 on 9th March 2017, obtained spousal consent, and deposited the balance of Kshs.400,000 in court. The court framed two issues: entitlement to specific performance and to damages. It confirmed the agreement satisfied Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, being written and signed, and reiterated that uncontroverted evidence must still be tested against the balance of probability. Finding a valid contract, the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and that land is a unique commodity for which damages would be inadequate, the court granted specific performance including the Deputy Registrar's signature in default. On damages, as the Plaintiff did not prove actual loss, nominal damages of Kshs.200,000 were awarded, with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the sale agreement complied with Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and was enforceable

Holding

The sale agreement was in writing, signed by the parties and contained the names of the parties, description of the property, purchase price and conditions, and was therefore a valid enforceable contract

Reasoning

The court examined the agreement produced as an exhibit and confirmed it was in writing and signed by the parties, satisfying Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act. It contained the parties' names, the property description, the purchase price and conditions, meeting the criteria for a valid contract of sale of land enforceable by the parties.

p. 2
02

Whether specific performance should be granted

Holding

Specific performance was granted because the contract was valid, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform having paid Kshs.800,000 and deposited the balance in court, and damages were inadequate since land is a unique commodity

Reasoning

The court found a valid, unvitiated agreement, the plaintiff's payment of Kshs.800,000 with the balance of Kshs.400,000 deposited in court demonstrating readiness and willingness, and the defendant's failure to perform. Damages were inadequate because land is unique and cannot always be equated to money, and the plaintiff was in possession. Specific performance was the remedy that best ensured justice.

p. 3
03

Whether damages for breach of contract were payable

Holding

Having found the defendant in breach, and the plaintiff having failed to prove actual loss, only nominal damages of Kshs.200,000 were awarded

Reasoning

The court held the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform his obligations. Relying on the principle that a claimant who does not prove actual loss is entitled to nominal damages, and since the plaintiff did not state the damages she had suffered, the court awarded nominal damages of Kshs.200,000 in addition to specific performance.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Uncontroverted evidence does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proving the case on a balance of probability
  • Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy granted on well-laid principles, based on the existence of a valid enforceable contract and absent an adequate alternative remedy
  • A claimant for breach of contract who does not prove actual loss is nonetheless entitled to nominal damages

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in terms of prayers No.1(a) & (b) of the Plaint, namely specific performance of the contract and an order compelling the Defendant to present the application to the Land Control Board for Consent to transfer, and in default the Deputy Registrar of the Court to sign the necessary application for consent to transfer
  2. 2.Damages for breach of contract awarded to the Plaintiff in the nominal sum of Kshs.200,000/=
  3. 3.Costs of the suit to be borne by the Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law of Contract ActSection 3(3)
  • Auctioneers ActCap. 526

Cases cited (7)

  • Shaneebal Limited Vs County Government of Machakos
    (2018) eKLR
  • Karuru Munyororo Vs Joseph Ndumia Murage & Another
    Nyeri HCCC No.95 of 1988
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited Vs Nathan Karanja Gachoka & Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Gichinga Kibutha Vs Caroline Nduku
    (2018) eKLR
  • Nelson Kivuvani Vs Yuda Komora & Another
    Nairobi HCCC No.956 of 1991
  • Reliable Electrical Engineers Ltd Vs Mantrac Kenya Limited
    (2006) eKLR
  • Peter Umbuku Muyaka Vs Henry Sitati Mmbasu
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (not expressly invoked in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gladys Wanjiru Kamau v Edwin Njeru Gichovi [2019] KEELC 292 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/292/eng@2019-12-18

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