Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 3275 (KLR)

Stanley Michieka v James Davidson Gikandi & 6 others [2019] KEELC 3275 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 May 2019
BEB M Eboso
1,578 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued seven defendants seeking a permanent injunction restraining interference with Plot No. 364 (L.R No. 13330/234, Thome Farmers No. 5 Limited), a mandatory injunction to transfer the plot to him, specific performance of a sale agreement dated 8th December 1989, alternatively damages, and costs. His case was that he bought the plot from the 1st and 2nd defendants for Kshs 170,000 in 1989, paid the full purchase price and disbursements, received a share certificate from the 3rd defendant, and paid Kshs 310,000 to the 6th defendant, the 5th defendant's advocate, following a consent order. The 7th defendant, a later advocate for the 5th defendant, demanded a further Kshs 578,000, which the plaintiff resisted. The 1st to 5th defendants did not enter appearance despite service; the 6th and 7th defendants denied liability, contending they acted for a disclosed principal, the 5th defendant. At the hearing the plaintiff testified and produced the sale agreement, share certificate and receipts. The court framed two issues: whether the prayers lay against the defendants, and whether the 6th and 7th defendants were liable. It found the 1st to 5th defendants obligated to convey title and entered judgment against them in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (e). It held the 6th and 7th defendants were agents of known principals and non-suited, dismissing the claim against them with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunction and transfer of the suit property against the 1st to 5th defendants

Holding

Yes; the plaintiff paid the purchase price to the 1st and 2nd defendants, share certificate money to the 3rd defendant, and additional money to the 5th defendant, who were therefore obligated to convey the title

Reasoning

The court found it undisputed that the suit property was part of a larger parcel registered in the 5th defendant's name. The plaintiff paid the original purchase price, the share certificate money and the additional sum of Kshs 310,000 demanded through the 5th defendant's advocate following a consent order. There was no justification for the further demand of Kshs 578,000. The defendants were thus obligated to facilitate conveyance, and the claim against the 1st to 5th defendants was undefended.

p. 3
02

Whether the 6th and 7th defendants (advocates) were personally liable

Holding

No; they were agents acting for known principals and are non-suited

Reasoning

The 6th defendant was the 5th defendant's advocate whose mandate ceased when instructions were terminated; the 7th defendant was retained to prepare transfers for purchasers who had complied with the 5th defendant's requirements. Neither led evidence, but the court held that agents of disclosed principals are not personally liable and are bound by orders directed at the principal.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An agent of a known principal is not personally liable and is bound by any court order directed against the principal

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (e) of the plaint
  2. 2.The claim against the 6th and 7th defendants dismissed with no orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Ndiege Oach Atieno v Ndire Nyasore
    [2016]eKLR
  • Manzoor v Baram
    (2003) 2 E.A
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the court under the law governing land and environment disputes (specific provision not cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stanley Michieka v James Davidson Gikandi & 6 others [2019] KEELC 3275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3275/eng@2019-05-13

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