Rambart Miheso Ifedha v Rosemary Brenda Mutende & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2914 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court cancelled a fraudulent land resale and ordered the original seller to complete the sale, proving that paid-for land in your possession is legally yours.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the land sale agreement
The sale agreement satisfied Section 3(3) of the Contract Act and was a valid, enforceable contract
Section 3(3) of the Contract Act requires a contract for disposition of an interest in land to be in writing, signed by all parties and attested by a witness. The court perused the agreement (PEx1), found it in writing and signed by the parties, containing the parties' names, property description, purchase price and conditions, and therefore valid and enforceable.
Whether the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to pay the balance
The plaintiff paid the full purchase price of Kshs. 450,000/= as acknowledged by the 1st defendant's late husband; there was no breach by the plaintiff
The agreement itself recorded payment in full by the date of signing. PEx2 acknowledged receipt of the full purchase price. The 1st defendant's willingness to refund Kshs. 1.5 million undermined her claim that only Kshs. 250,000/= was paid. There was no evidence the balance was to be paid as school fees in the USA.
Fraudulent resale to the 2nd defendant
The 1st defendant fraudulently sold the already-sold property to the 2nd defendant in 2015
The property had been sold to the plaintiff in 2002 and he had taken possession and connected water. The 1st defendant sold the same land to the 2nd defendant for Kshs. 6 million in 2015. The court found her greedy and dishonest; at the time of resale the property was not available for sale.
Legal principles established
#- A sale agreement for land in writing, signed by the parties, containing parties' names, property description, purchase price and conditions constitutes a valid enforceable contract
- A seller who resells land already sold and in the buyer's possession acts fraudulently
Court orders
#- 1.Revocation of the purported transfer of the lease to the 2nd defendant in respect of Block IV/9 Kakamega Municipality within 90 days
- 2.An order compelling the 1st defendant to complete the sale contract with the plaintiff, execute all transfer documents, and in default the Deputy Registrar to do so
- 3.A permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling, disposing of, transferring, charging, pledging, leasing, wasting or interfering with the plaintiff's possession and quiet enjoyment of Block IV/9 Kakamega Municipality
- 4.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (Environment and Land Court Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rambart Miheso Ifedha v Rosemary Brenda Mutende & 2 others [2020] KEELC 2914 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). ELC Case No. 207 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2914/eng@2020-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.