Saint Mary’s Sacred Heart Christian Brothers & Sisters International v Akenya Investment Limited (Environment & Land Case 132 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 1003 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court found no valid written land sale agreement existed, dismissed the buyer's Kshs.45 million claim, and ordered it evicted for unpaid rent.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of a land sale agreement
No land sale agreement existed between the parties; the alleged oral 'gentleman's agreement' cannot found a suit for disposition of an interest in land, and the document produced as the sale agreement was not signed by any party to the suit.
Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act requires a written contract for disposition of an interest in land, signed by all parties and attested. The plaint itself pleaded an oral agreement. The document produced as Exhibit P.1 was signed by Patricia Aluoch and George Debe, not by the parties to the suit, and no evidence showed the signatories had authority. The Defendant, a limited company, had to execute documents per the Companies Act then in force.
Proof of payment of purchase price
The Plaintiff failed to prove payment of monies for purchase of the suit land; the vouchers were disowned, tainted by a forgery conviction of the Plaintiff's director, and the claimed figures were inconsistent.
The Plaintiff pleaded payment of Kshs.19,873,000 at filing suit yet PW1 claimed a total of Kshs.47,000,000 against a purchase price of Kshs.45,000,000, without explaining the excess. Receipts were disowned by defence witnesses. Some vouchers were the subject of a criminal case in which Patricia Aluoch was convicted of forgery, and PW1 admitted discrepancies between vouchers and earlier filed copies. Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the Plaintiff.
Existence and status of the tenancy agreement
A tenancy agreement existed at a monthly rent of Kshs.232,000, was never terminated, and remained in force; the Plaintiff continued in possession despite court orders to keep paying rent.
It was common ground the Plaintiff entered as a tenant at Kshs.232,000 per month. The claim that the tenancy converted into a land sale was unsupported by evidence. The court had, through rulings of 7th May, 2015 and 28th February, 2018, ordered continued payment of rent pending suit, which the Plaintiff ignored. Consequently the Defendant's counterclaim for arrears, eviction and utility bills succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- No suit shall be brought upon a contract for the disposition of an interest in land unless the contract is in writing, signed by all parties, and each party's signature attested by a witness present at signing (Section 3(3), Law of Contract Act).
- A party alleging payment must prove the authenticity of the documents evidencing payment; the burden of proof lies on the party alleging (sections 107-109, Evidence Act).
- A limited liability company must execute documents in the manner specified under the Companies Act; persons signing for it must show authority.
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed with no order as to costs
- 2.Judgment entered for the Defendant as prayed in the counterclaim for the sum of Kshs.8,353,000 being outstanding aggregate arrears of unpaid rent as at January, 2017 plus additional amounts accruing at the rate of Kshs.232,000/- per month until the Plaintiff vacates the premises
- 3.The Plaintiff to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within 90 days, failing which an order of eviction shall issue as by law provided
- 4.Recovery of Kshs.133,101,95 and Kshs.101,789/- being outstanding electricity and water bills plus such additional sums as may continue to accrue until the Plaintiff vacates the premises
- 5.Costs of the counterclaim and interest thereon and on the awards in (a) and (c) above at court rates
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute relating to land parcel Kisumu Municipality Block 4/147
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Saint Mary’s Sacred Heart Christian Brothers & Sisters International v Akenya Investment Limited (Environment & Land Case 132 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 1003 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kisumu ELC Case (as pleaded in the amended plaint dated 29th May, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1003/eng@2025-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.