Rowland Edwin Nyaga Murithi v Nyaga Murua Mbario [2019] KEELC 1392 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a buyer's appeal because he could not produce the sale agreement or prove his compensation claim.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Duty of a first appellate court on facts
The appellate court re-evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions but defers to the trial court's findings unless they rest on no evidence or overlook material circumstances
Guided by Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co and Peters v Sunday Post, the court applied the settled principle that an appellate court may disturb factual findings only with caution, since the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses. The court found the trial court's conclusions on the evidence reasonable and declined to disturb them.
Proof of the alleged sale agreement
The Appellant failed to prove the existence of a sale agreement and payment of the purchase price; the burden lay on him once the Respondent denied the agreement
The Respondent denied the alleged 2003 sale in his defence. No sale agreement was produced at trial. The court held that in those circumstances it was the Appellant's duty to demonstrate the agreement, and it was not unreasonable for the trial court to find he had failed to do so.
Capacity to convey and availability of specific performance
Specific performance was not tenable because the Respondent had no legal interest in the suit property in 2003, having acquired title only in 2009 upon confirmation of grant in Succession Cause No. 20 of 1995
The Respondent pleaded that the property was registered in the name of the deceased Triza Riimi in 2003 and that he acquired it in 2009 pursuant to Runyenjes PM Succession Cause No. 20 of 1995. The appellate court found a reasonable tribunal could only reach the trial court's conclusion that there was no capacity to dispose of the property in 2003.
Particularity required in pleading special damages
The compensation claim was special damages which had to be pleaded and proved with specificity; a bare claim at 'current market rates' without a stated value was insufficient
Applying Ouma v Nairobi City Council and Ratcliffe v Evans, the court held that all particulars including the amount sought must be pleaded. The amended plaint only claimed compensation at current market rates and specified only the Kshs.14,500 valuation fee. Since no sale agreement or breach was proved, there was in any event no basis for compensation.
Legal principles established
#- A first appellate court must reconsider, analyze and re-evaluate the entire evidence on record while making due allowance for not having seen or heard the witnesses
- A plaintiff claiming special damages must plead it with sufficient particularity and prove it by evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party shall bear his own costs
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Embu
- Embu CMCC No. 27 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate's Court in Embu CMCC No. 27 of 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rowland Edwin Nyaga Murithi v Nyaga Murua Mbario [2019] KEELC 1392 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). E.L.C.A. Case No. 18 of 2015 (Formerly HCCA No. 4 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1392/eng@2019-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.