Ronald Kenyansa Nyamosi v National Social Security Fund & another [2019] KEELC 3054 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi property buyer failed to stop eviction because his purchase agreement wasn't in writing and signed as Kenyan law requires.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
He did not; there was no written agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as required by Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, and the 1st defendant was not privy to the plaintiff's agreement with the vendor Joan Yatich Kilele
The court applied Giella vs Cassman Brown and Mrao Ltd. The plaintiff's agreement (annexure RN1) was with Joan Yatich Kilele, to whom the purchase price was paid. The 1st defendant was not party to that agreement and there was no written and signed agreement between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff as required by Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act. Accordingly the transfer signed by the 1st defendant could not be lawful without an agreement and consideration, and no prima facie case was established.
Whether irreparable loss was demonstrated
No; the consideration paid to the vendor was ascertainable and damages would suffice
The court found that the plaintiff's case was that the consideration was paid to the vendor Joan Yatich Kilele and that the amount could be ascertained. Damages would therefore adequately compensate him, failing the second Giella limb.
Whether the prayer for production of cash account by the 2nd defendant was properly before the court
No; Order 52 rule 4(2) requires such application by originating summons supported by affidavit and served on the advocate; a notice of motion is contrary to the rules
Order 52 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is worded in mandatory terms. The plaintiff brought the application by notice of motion, contrary to the provision. The court held that rules are not made in vain and must be adhered to, and dismissed that prayer. The 2nd defendant had also argued there was no cause of action against it, the 1st defendant never having sought any balance of purchase price.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an injunction must make full and frank disclosure and show a legal or equitable right requiring protection
- Agreements for sale of immovable property must be in writing and signed by the parties under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
- Applications under Order 52 rule 4(2) must be brought by originating summons; rules must be adhered to
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 17th January 2017 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent power under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules 1, 3(1) and Order 52 Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Trust Land Developers Limited v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute & 3 others (Civil Suit 455 of 2009) [2025] KEELC 7645 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7645 (KLR)6 Nov 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ronald Kenyansa Nyamosi v National Social Security Fund & another [2019] KEELC 3054 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (notice of motion dated 17th January 2017 within the main suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3054/eng@2019-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.