Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2024] KEELC 4841 (KLR)

Odero & 2 others (Suing as the office bearers of Lakeland Welfare Club) v Raget & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 41 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 4841 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 June 2024
7,744 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~31 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed land buyers' suit because they failed to pay the full purchase price on time, while the new owners' titles were protected.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs sued the 1st defendant for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29th September 2010 over Title Nos. Kisumu/Fortternan/516 and 518 for Kshs. 4,950,000/-, and sought declarations that the subsequent transfer of the properties to the 2nd and 3rd defendants was fraudulent and void, rectification of the registers, eviction, injunctions and exemplary damages. The 1st defendant admitted the agreement but contended the plaintiffs breached it by failing to pay the full purchase price within the 90-day completion period, that she rescinded and refunded Kshs. 4,905,000/- before suit, and that she lawfully sold to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 2nd and 3rd defendants pleaded bona fide purchase without notice after due diligence; the 4th and 5th defendants (land registry officials) denied fraud or negligence. The court found the plaintiffs themselves breached the agreement, having paid only Kshs. 2,400,000/- by the completion date of 29th December 2010 and still owing Kshs. 35,000/- at filing. Specific performance was refused for a party in breach, and because the properties no longer exist after consolidation into Plot No. 1129. Fraud against the 2nd and 3rd defendants was not proved to the heavier standard required, their titles being indefeasible under the Land Registration Act 2012. General damages for breach of contract were held unavailable absent oppressive or vindictive conduct. The suit was dismissed with costs to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants; costs were denied to the 1st defendant because of her conviction for giving false information to a land registrar, which the court declined to condone.

Key legal issues

#
01

Which party breached the agreement of sale

Holding

The plaintiffs breached the agreement by failing to pay the full purchase price of Kshs. 4,950,000/- within the 90-day completion period, leaving Kshs. 35,000/- unpaid even at filing of suit

Reasoning

The completion date was 29th December 2010, by which only Kshs. 2,400,000/- had been paid. Payments continued to 7th August 2013, nearly three years later, still leaving a balance. No agreement extending time or offsetting Land Control Board expenses of Kshs. 71,000/- was proved.

p. 6
02

Entitlement to specific performance

Holding

Refused; plaintiffs were in breach and the suit properties no longer exist, having been consolidated into Plot No. 1129

Reasoning

Specific performance is discretionary and equitable; a party in breach cannot invoke it. Further, since rectification of the 2nd and 3rd defendants' registration was refused, the 1st defendant has nothing to transfer, making the remedy practically unavailable.

p. 9
03

Rectification of registers and indefeasibility of the 2nd and 3rd defendants' titles

Holding

Rectification refused; the 2nd and 3rd defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the plaintiffs' interest, and fraud was not proved against them

Reasoning

Under sections 24, 25, 26 and 80 of the Land Registration Act 2012 (and the analogous Registered Land Act provisions), registered titles are indefeasible save for fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is party. Plaintiffs proved neither knowledge by the 2nd and 3rd defendants of the earlier sale nor their involvement in the provisional title obtained by the 1st defendant by false statements.

p. 12
04

General and exemplary damages for breach of contract

Holding

Not payable; general damages lie only exceptionally for oppressive, high-handed, outrageous, insolent or vindictive conduct, which was not established

Reasoning

Damages for breach of contract are measured by Hadley v Baxendale principles and are special damages that must be pleaded and proved. The 1st defendant's conduct, including the false report to the Land Registrar for which she was convicted, was not found material to the contract issues before the court.

p. 13
05

Costs

Holding

Costs follow the event and go to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants; the 1st defendant is denied costs due to her criminal conviction for giving false information to a land registrar

Reasoning

Although the court found the 1st defendant's crime immaterial to the issues tried, awarding her costs would amount to condoning criminal conduct.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • A plaintiff in breach of a contract for the sale of land cannot obtain specific performance
  • Fraud imputations against a registered proprietor must be proved to a standard heavier than a balance of probabilities
  • As a general rule, general damages are not awarded for breach of contract; contract damages are special damages in the nature of restitution in integrum and must be pleaded and proved
  • A title of a proprietor who acquired land for value in possession cannot be rectified absent knowledge of, or contribution to, the fraud or mistake

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the suit awarded to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants only; costs denied to the 1st defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Registered Land Act (Cap 300, Laws of Kenya) (now repealed)Sections 27, 28, 143(1) and (2)
  • Land Registration Act 2012Sections 24, 25, 26, 80

Cases cited (16)

  • Manzoor v Baram
    [2003] 2 E.A 580
  • Thrift Homes Limited v. Kays Investment Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Amina Abdulkadir Hawa v. Rabinder Nath Anand & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Gurdev Singh Birdi and Marinder Singh Ghatora v. Abubakar Madhubuti
    CA No.165 of 1996
  • Virani t/a Kisumu Beach Resort v. Phoenix of East Africa Assurance Co. Ltd
    [2004] 2 E.A KLR 269
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd. v Damanico (UG) Ltd.
    [1990-1994] E.A 141 (SCU)
  • Joseph Urigadi Kedeva v. Ebby Kangishal Kavai
    Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1997 (UR)
  • Consolata Anyango Ouma v. South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd
    (2015) eKLR
  • Kenya Industrial Estates Ltd v Lee Enterprises Ltd
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2004 [2009] eKLR
  • Kenya Breweries Ltd v Natex Distributors Ltd
    Milimani HCCC No. 704 of 2000 [2004] eKLR
  • Hadley v Baxendale
    (1854) 9 Exch. 341
  • Standard Chartered Bank Limited v Intercom Services Ltd & Others
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003 [2004] eKLR
  • Coast Bus Service Ltd v Sisco Murunga Ndanyi & 2 others
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 192 of 92 (UR)
  • Charles C. Sande v Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 154 of 1992 (UR)
  • Capital Fish Kenya Limited v. The Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Marine Management Association & Another v National Maritime Authority
    (2012) 18 NWLR 504
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to title to land

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odero & 2 others (Suing as the office bearers of Lakeland Welfare Club) v Raget & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 41 of 2015) [2024] KEELC 4841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4841/eng@2024-06-19

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