Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELCC No. 379 of 2013 (lead file, consolidated with ELCC No. 381 of 2013)· [2020] KEELC 1107 (KLR)

Samson Njuguna Mwaura v Jane Cherotich Mutai [2020] KEELC 1107 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 October 2020
4,245 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land seller who cancelled a sale without notice making time of the essence lost his eviction bid and was ordered to complete the sale.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two consolidated Environment and Land Court suits at Nakuru arising from a sale agreement dated 18 March 2009 under which Samson Njuguna Mwaura sold land parcel Rongai/Lengenet Block 2/46 (Mawe) with developments to Jane Cherotich Mutai for KShs 1,350,000 payable in instalments ending 30 June 2009. Jane paid KShs 750,000 and defaulted on the balance of KShs 600,000. Samson sued for injunction and eviction, alleging rescission on 25 April; Jane counter-sued for specific performance and a permanent injunction, asserting Samson refused to accept the balance and 20% penalty when tendered by banker's cheques on 9 May 2013. The court held the agreement was never validly rescinded because it made no provision for rescission, did not make time of the essence, and Samson issued no notice of revocation, applying Gurdev Singh Birdi on the necessity of notice making time of the essence. Jane was nonetheless found in breach from 30 June 2009, incurring the clause 6 penalty of 20% of the purchase price (KShs 270,000). Because she had the balance and penalty ready before the suits were filed, and had taken possession and developed the property, the court granted her specific performance. Samson's prayers for injunction and eviction were dismissed; judgment was entered for Samson for KShs 600,000 plus KShs 270,000, payable or deposited in court within 21 days, after which Samson was to transfer the property, with the Deputy Registrar empowered to sign in default. A permanent injunction restrained Samson from disposing of the land to anyone other than Jane. No order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the sale agreement was rescinded

Holding

The agreement was not validly rescinded because Samson served no notice making time of the essence, and the agreement itself made no provision for rescission or forfeiture and did not make time of the essence

Reasoning

The agreement was home-made and handwritten, without a rescission or forfeiture clause and without an express stipulation that time was of the essence. Following Gurdev Singh Birdi, a party alleging delay must serve notice making time of the essence before cancellation. Samson admitted under cross-examination he issued no notice of revocation, and no notice was produced in evidence.

p. 3
02

Whether Jane breached the agreement and the consequences

Holding

Jane was in breach from 30 June 2009 for failure to pay the balance of KShs 600,000 by the agreed date; she is liable to pay the balance plus the 20% penalty of KShs 270,000 under clause 6

Reasoning

The terms of the agreement were clear and had to be complied with unless varied in writing; sickness or travel was no defence. Jane could simply have banked the money in Samson's account whose details she had. Her attempt to pay on 9 May 2013 was nearly five years late. Clause 6 provides that a breaching party loses 20% of the purchase price.

p. 3
03

Whether Jane is entitled to specific performance and a permanent injunction

Holding

Yes; Jane demonstrated readiness and willingness to pay the balance and penalty before the suits were filed, and the justice of the case required completion of the contract

Reasoning

The cut-off point for readiness is the date of filing suit; Jane had banker's cheques for the balance and penalty ready by 9 May 2013, before filing on 23 May 2013. She had taken possession under the contract and developed the property with a school. Samson had received KShs 750,000 and sought no relief as to that sum. Substantive justice under Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2) favoured completion.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where time is not of the essence of a land sale agreement, a party seeking to rescind must first serve notice making time of the essence; rescission without such notice is invalid
  • Specific performance may issue to a plaintiff who, though previously in breach, was ready and willing to perform at the date of filing suit
  • An agreed 20% penalty clause binds a party in breach of the payment terms

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Samson Njuguna Mwaura's prayers for orders of injunction and eviction are dismissed
  2. 2.Judgment entered against Jane Cherotich Mutai and in favour of Samson Njuguna Mwaura for KShs 600,000 being balance of the purchase price
  3. 3.Judgment for KShs 270,000 being 20% penalty as per the sale agreement
  4. 4.The amounts to be paid within 21 days of delivery of judgment, failing which Jane to deposit them in court
  5. 5.Upon payment or deposit, Samson to transfer Rongai/Lengenet Block 2/46 (Mawe) to Jane within 21 days; in default the Deputy Registrar to sign all such documents on his behalf
  6. 6.Permanent injunction issued restraining Samson from selling, transferring, alienating or disposing the suit property to any person other than Jane
  7. 7.No order as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSections 39 and 41
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 3
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Mohammed Jawayd Iqbal (Personal representative of the Estate of the Late Ghulam Rasool Jammohamed) v George Boniface Mbogua
    [2019] eKLR
  • William Kazungu Karisa v Cosmus Angore Chanzera
    [2006] eKLR
  • Gurdev Singh Birdi & Narinder Singh Ghatora as Trustees of Ramgharia Institute of Mombasa v Abubakar Madhbuti
    [1997] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act, Section 3 (with Sections 1A and 1B Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2) of the Constitution cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Samson Njuguna Mwaura v Jane Cherotich Mutai [2020] KEELC 1107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELCC No. 379 of 2013 (lead file, consolidated with ELCC No. 381 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1107/eng@2020-09-08

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