Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Nakuru Environment and Land Court suit)· [2020] KEELC 1274 (KLR)

Damaris Wanjiru Nganga v Loise Naisiae Leiyan & another; Victor Mahonga Ayumba (Third Party) [2020] KEELC 1274 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2020
7,573 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~30 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A buyer who paid fully and moved in can still get the Kenyan farmland despite missing Land Control Board consent, but must clear the bank loan first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff sued on an agreement for sale dated 5th February 2014 for the purchase of land parcel Miti Mingi Mbaruk Block 8/2367 (Kianjoya 'D') from the 1st defendant for Kshs.5,800,000/=, seeking specific performance, a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs; against the 2nd defendant (KCB), the chargee, she sought disclosure of the loan account and an order that the property be transferred upon settlement of the loan. The 1st defendant's defence was that the land was agricultural and the agreement became null and void under section 6(1) of the Land Control Act because no Land Control Board consent was obtained, entitling the plaintiff only to a refund. The 2nd defendant admitted the charge securing a Kshs.4.5 million staff loan and stated it would discharge the security on full payment. The court framed five issues, including the effect of the missing consent, the availability of specific performance, and the effect of the lack of the chargee's consent. Confronted with conflicting Court of Appeal authority (Macharia Mwangi Maina and Willy Kimutai Kitilit on one side, David Sironga Ole Tukai on the other), the court elected to follow Kitilit, holding that a constructive trust arising by operation of law on full payment and possession is not a 'dealing' in agricultural land requiring consent. Finding the plaintiff paid the full purchase price, took possession, developed the property and serviced the loan, the court held a constructive trust was created in her favour and granted specific performance, but conditioned transfer on full settlement of the outstanding loan of Kshs.2,623,674/16 to the bank, whose charge takes priority. The plaintiff was given liberty to pay the loan after 30 days and to bring a fresh suit to recover any redemption sums exceeding the purchase price, with the Deputy Registrar empowered to execute documents on default. The 1st defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's and the 2nd defendant's costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of absence of Land Control Board consent on the sale agreement

Holding

The agreement became null and void under section 6(1) read with section 8(1) of the Land Control Act, but a constructive trust arising by operation of law is not caught by the Act and is enforceable

Reasoning

No consent was sought or obtained within six months, so the agreement was statutorily void. However, following the Court of Appeal in Willy Kimutai Kitilit, a constructive trust is created by operation of law, not a 'transaction or dealing' under section 6(1), and equity is a national value under Article 10(2) binding the courts. The court resolved the conflicting Court of Appeal authority (Macharia Mwangi Maina and Kitilit versus David Sironga Ole Tukai) in favour of Kitilit on the facts.

p. 8
02

Whether specific performance was available to the plaintiff

Holding

Yes, but only subject to the 2nd defendant's charge being discharged upon full settlement of the loan

Reasoning

The plaintiff paid the full purchase price, took possession, developed the property and continued servicing the loan; the 1st defendant was obligated to obtain the Land Control Board consent and the discharge of charge and could not rely on her own default. The chargee's prior interest takes precedence, so the transfer and the crystallization of the trust are conditioned on full settlement of the loan and release of the discharge.

p. 8
03

Whether lack of chargee (bank) consent invalidated the sale agreement

Holding

No; the agreement simply could not be completed until the loan was repaid and the discharge issued

Reasoning

The 2nd defendant was a stranger to the sale agreement, and privity means it cannot be bound by it. Its only interest was the security for the staff loan. The absence of its consent did not render the agreement illegal; completion required payment of the outstanding loan in full, whereupon the bank would issue a discharge.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a purchaser pays the full purchase price and takes possession, a constructive trust arises by operation of law which is not a 'dealing' in agricultural land requiring Land Control Board consent, following Willy Kimutai Kitilit v Michael Kibet
  • A contract binds only the parties to it; a chargee not party to a sale agreement is unaffected by it and must be paid in full before discharge of the charge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st defendant is ordered to transfer Land Parcel Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 8/2367 (Kianjoya 'D') to the plaintiff upon full settlement of the outstanding loan to the 2nd defendant and issue of discharge of charge
  2. 2.After 30 days from the date of judgment, if the 1st defendant has not settled the outstanding loan in full, the plaintiff may pay the outstanding loan balance and have the discharge of charge and title documents released to her
  3. 3.If the plaintiff pays the outstanding loan balance, she may bring a fresh suit against the 1st defendant to recover money paid towards redemption of the title over and above the purchase price
  4. 4.If the 1st defendant defaults in executing necessary documents, the Deputy Registrar of the Court is authorized to execute such documents to effectuate the judgment
  5. 5.The 1st defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's and the 2nd defendant's costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Control Actsections 6(1), 6(2), 8(1), 9, 22
  • Law of Contract Actsection 3(3)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012sections 25(2), 28, 36
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 10(1)(b), 10(2)(b), 60, 67, 159(2)(e); Sixth Schedule, clause 7 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions)
  • Judicature Actsection 3
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)section 126
  • Land Act, 2012section 38(2)
  • Registered Land Act, Cap 300 (repealed)referred generally

Cases cited (5)

  • Macharia Mwangi Maina & 87 Others -vs- Davidson Mwangi Kagiri
    (2014) eKLR
  • Will Kimutai Kitilit -vs- Michael Kibet (also cited as Willy Kimutai Kitilit / Will Kimutai Kitilit -vs- Micahel Kibet)
    (2018) eKLR
  • David Sironga Ole Tukai -vs- Francis Arap Muge & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Public Trust -vs- Wanduru Ndegwa
    (1984) eKLR
  • Koyumkei Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd & 17 others -vs- Rael Chepngetich Koech
    (2019) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a land sale/contract dispute (Land Control Act, Land Registration Act 2012)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Damaris Wanjiru Nganga v Loise Naisiae Leiyan & another; Victor Mahonga Ayumba (Third Party) [2020] KEELC 1274 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (Nakuru Environment and Land Court suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1274/eng@2020-09-30

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