Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedOriginating Summons dated 4th August 2020 (filed 10th August 2020)· [2024] KEELC 5445 (KLR)

Cherere v Wandarwa & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 18 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 5445 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 July 2024
7,214 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to enforce a 2001 land sale made before the seller's father's estate was distributed, but ordered the seller to refund the buyer's money with interest.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff filed an Originating Summons under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act seeking a declaration that he had acquired land parcel LOC.GAKOIGO/975 by adverse possession, alternatively damages for breach of contract, and an order of transfer of the parcel to him. He relied on a sale agreement dated 18th June 2001 with the 1st Defendant, who was then neither the registered proprietor nor an administrator of the estate of his deceased father, the registered owner who died intestate in 1992. The Applicant claimed he paid the full purchase price (Kshs. 40,000/= acknowledged on 15th November 2001) and had occupied and developed the land since 2001. The Defendants opposed, contending the agreement was void ab initio as it amounted to intermeddling with a deceased person's estate contrary to Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, and that the 2nd Defendant, who purchased in 2014, held title. The court framed a single issue: whether the Applicant was entitled to the orders sought. Applying Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act and authority on intermeddling, the court held the 2001 sale agreement null and void, unenforceable, and that time for adverse possession could not run on an illegality; it would offend public policy to enforce the contract. However, refusing to let the 1st Defendant profit from his own wrongdoing, and invoking prayer d and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the court ordered the 1st Defendant to refund the purchase price monies with interest from the date of judgment. Prayers a, b and c were dismissed with costs to the 2nd Defendant; the 1st Defendant to bear his own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant acquired the suit land by adverse possession

Holding

No. His entry was founded on a sale agreement that was null and void under Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, so time could not run in his favour.

Reasoning

The suit land was registered in the name of the 1st Respondent's deceased father, who died intestate in 1992. At the time of the 18th June 2001 sale agreement the 1st Respondent was neither the registered proprietor nor an administrator of the estate. Dealing with free property of a deceased person without a grant is intermeddling and a nullity. Since the claim was founded on purchase, time runs from payment of the final instalment, but no limitation period can run on an illegality; the court cannot enforce or give effect to a void transaction even after twelve or more years of possession.

p. 10
02

Whether the Applicant was entitled to damages for breach of the 2001 sale agreement

Holding

No. The agreement being null and void ab initio for contravening Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act, it is unenforceable and no breach arises.

Reasoning

A contract that contravenes a statute is illegal and void ab initio. Having found the sale agreement over a deceased person's property before succession proceedings was null and void, the court found it unenforceable and declined to award damages for breach.

p. 10
03

Whether the 1st Respondent should be allowed to benefit from an illegality to which he was a party

Holding

No. Invoking its inherent jurisdiction and prayer d, the court ordered the 1st Respondent to refund the purchase price monies received, with interest.

Reasoning

Applying the policy that no person should profit from his own wrongdoing and that equity detests unjust enrichment, and noting the Applicant had not pleaded refund, the court used prayer d (any other or better relief) together with Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to direct the 1st Respondent to refund monies received as purported purchase price with interest from the date of judgment until payment in full.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a claim founded on purchase is based on a contract with a person lacking capacity because the land was still estate property of a deceased person before confirmation of grant, the contract is a nullity and time for adverse possession cannot run on it
  • Courts will not enforce an illegal contract even at the instance of a party implicated in the illegality, but neither will a defendant be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Prayers no. a, b and c of the Originating Summons dated 4th August 2020 are found not merited and are dismissed entirely
  2. 2.On prayer no. d, the 1st Respondent is directed to refund to the Applicant any money/monies he may have received from the Applicant as purported purchase price, with interest from the date of the Judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Costs to the 2nd Respondent
  4. 4.The 1st Respondent to bear his own costs for having executed the contract for disposal of the suit property dated 18th June 2001 before the estate of his father was fully distributed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 Rule 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 13
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 37 and 38
  • Land Registration ActSection 28
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Law of Succession ActSection 45
  • Law of Succession ActSection 55
  • Law of Succession ActSection 82(b)(ii)

Cases cited (28)

  • Chevron (K) Limited V Harrison Charo Washutu
    Malindi Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016
  • Wesley Barasa V Immaculate Awino Obongo
    Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2015
  • Mariba V Mariba
    Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2002
  • Janet Ngendo V Mary Wangari Mwangi
    Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2003
  • Elizabeth Cheboo V Mary Cheboo Gimnyei
    Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1978
  • Mbuthia Chiragu V Kiarie Kaguru
    Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1996
  • Mombasa Teachers Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Ltd V Robert Muhambi Katan & 15 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Sisto Wambugu V Kamau Njuguna
    (1983) eKLR
  • Samuel Miki Wawer V Jane Njeru Richu
    Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2001
  • Francis Munyoki Kilonxo & Another V Vincent Mutua Mutiso
    (2013) eKLR
  • McFoy V United Africa Co. Ltd
    (1961) 3 All ER 1169
  • Mistry Valji vs Janendra Raichand & 2 Others
    C.A No. 46 of 2015, (2016) eKLR
  • Wambugu vs Kamau Njuguna
    Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1982
  • In re Estate of M'Etirikia Nthaka (Deceased)
    [2021] eKLR
  • In re The Matter Of The Estate Of Michael Kimando Mwangi (Deceased)
    Succession Cause No. 550 of 2015 [2016] eKLR
  • Virginia Mwari Thuranira vs. Purity Nkirote Thuranira
    [2017] eKLR
  • Re Estate of Benson Maingi Mulwa (deceased)
    (2021) eKLR
  • Veronica Njoki Wakagoto (Deceased)
    (2013) eKLR
  • In Re Estate of M`Ngarithi M`Miriti
    (2017) eKLR
  • D. Njogu & Company Advocates vs. National Bank of Kenya Limited
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2007 (2016) eKLR
  • Gabriel Mbui v Mukindia Maranya
    [1993] eKLR
  • Mohamed versus Attorney General
    (1990) KLR 146
  • Nyeri County Council versus Monicah M. Mwangi
    Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2001
  • Root Capital Incorporated v Tekangu Farmers' Co-operative Society Ltd & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Patel versus Mirza
    (2016) UKSC 42
  • Neville versus Wilkinson
    (1782) 1 Bro CC 543
  • Macharia Mwangi Maina & 87 Others -Vs- Davidson of Mwangi Kagiri
    [2014] eKLR
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Another Vs Stephen Mutinda Mule & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 37 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Section 28 of the Land Registration Act and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cherere v Wandarwa & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 18 of 2020) [2024] KEELC 5445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Originating Summons dated 4th August 2020 (filed 10th August 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/5445/eng@2024-07-18

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