Njenga v Rajmuk Investments Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 1157 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 4023 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a property vendor to refund KShs 4,026,000 to a buyer, finding both sides broke their sale agreement.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Which party breached the sale agreements
Both parties breached: the plaintiff failed to pay the purchase price and issued bouncing cheques, while the defendant failed to discharge the charge and avail completion documents
The plaintiff made random payments, some post-completion, and never gave a purchaser's undertaking to pay the final instalment. The defendant, who undertook under clause 7 of the first agreement to secure a discharge of the charge to Savings and Loan Kenya Ltd, never made the property available for transfer, with bank demands continuing into 2012 directed at the defendant himself.
Whether the rescission was proper
Neither rescission notice was proper
The 23.11.2011 rescission rested on the premise that the plaintiff was to service the vendor's mortgage account, which the court found incorrect since clause 2.2 only required Kshs. 87,000 of each instalment to go towards reducing the loan. The 19.4.2012 rescission rested on unwritten meeting deliberations with no evidence of how they affected the agreements.
What reliefs are available
A refund of the traceable monies paid less rent/service charge and a penalty for bounced cheques
Specific performance and vacant possession were refused; improvements were disallowed as they were not in the agreements. Retention of all monies paid would amount to unjust enrichment. The court traced payments of Kshs. 6,026,000, deducted Kshs. 1,500,000 rent/service charge and Kshs. 500,000 cheque penalty, yielding Kshs. 4,026,000.
Legal principles established
#- A court interprets a contract as written and does not rewrite it for the parties
- A party who has acknowledged receipt of payment is estopped from reneging on that acknowledgement
- The court will not countenance unjust enrichment where both parties caused the frustration of the contract
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of Kshs. 4,026,000
- 2.The said sum to be paid within 90 days from the date of delivery of the judgment, with interest at court's rates accruing from the 91st day after delivery of the judgment
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute relating to an apartment on parcel LR No. 209/118/56
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njenga v Rajmuk Investments Limited & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 1157 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 4023 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4023/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.