Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2020] KEELC 2069 (KLR)

Maurine Akinyi Maloba & another v Abbas Abubakar Alwi [2020] KEELC 2069 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 June 2020
3,010 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ordered a landowner to complete a plot sale because payments his lawyer received legally bound him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Two sisters (the Plaintiffs) sued the Defendant, the registered owner of Block II/118 India-Village/Lamu, seeking specific performance of agreements dated 1st September 2009 for the purchase of two plots (each 30 x 40 metres) at Kshs 80,000/- per plot, plus a permanent injunction against alienation or construction. The Defendant denied any sale agreement, asserting the plots were only leased at Kshs 700/- per plot per year and that he terminated the leases and repossessed them after the Plaintiffs failed to accept his offer to purchase. The court found that the Defendant's Advocates, Omwancha & Mukiri, wrote a demand letter on 3rd August 2009 offering occupants a first preference to buy their plots within 30 days. The Plaintiffs accepted within time by executing a 'Commitment and Undertaking' at the Advocates' office on 1st September 2009, naming the Defendant as Intended Vendor, and paid the purchase price by instalments, evidenced by receipts from the law firm. The court held the Advocates were the Defendant's disclosed agents acting within actual or apparent authority, and that any dispute over the monies was between the Defendant and his Advocate. The Plaintiffs' case was proved, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs as prayed, with costs. Judgment delivered at Malindi on 17th June 2020 by J.O. Olola, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a binding sale agreement existed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant

Holding

Yes - the 3rd August 2009 letter was an offer to purchase, which the Plaintiffs accepted within 30 days by the Commitment and Undertaking dated 1st September 2009 executed at the Defendant's Advocates' office.

Reasoning

The court traced the sequence: the Defendant, through his Advocates, offered occupants a first preference to buy their leased plots within 30 days. The Plaintiffs responded within that window by executing the Commitment and Undertaking before the same Advocates, which identified the Defendant as the Intended Vendor and set out the purchase price and payment schedule. The agreement was therefore formed with the Defendant notwithstanding that only the Plaintiffs and the Advocate signed it.

p. 4
02

Whether payments made to the Advocates bound the Defendant

Holding

Yes - the Advocates were the Defendant's disclosed agent; payment risk as between the Defendant and his Advocate was not the Plaintiffs' problem.

Reasoning

The demand letter instructed the Plaintiffs to make a written acceptance or offer without specifying it had to be made to the Defendant in person, and the receipts were issued by the Advocates for purchase of plots to be curved from the Defendant's land. The Advocate's preparation of the undertaking and acceptance of deposits fell within his actual or apparent authority. The Defendant never notified the Plaintiffs of any falling-out with the Advocate, and any payment dispute was internal to the Defendant and his Advocate.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An agent acting within actual or apparent authority, under a demand letter written on the defendant's admitted instructions, binds the principal; payments made to the disclosed agent enure to the principal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs as prayed in the Plaint
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil suit on land sale agreement; no specific jurisdictional provision stated in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maurine Akinyi Maloba & another v Abbas Abubakar Alwi [2020] KEELC 2069 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2069/eng@2020-06-17

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