Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case of Mombasa (amended plaint dated 5th March 2021)· [2025] KEELC 4917 (KLR)

Rimber v Unifresh Exotics (K) Limited (Environment and Land Case 427 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 4917 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 July 2025
3,610 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cancelled a land sale and let the seller keep all the money paid because the buyer failed to pay the full price.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, widow and successor of the original plaintiff Dennis Matano Gona Rimber, sued the defendant over a sale agreement dated 14th May 2015 for Kwale/Kikoneni/Mrima/663 (about 29 hectares) at Kshs.10,744,500, payable by deposit and instalments. A supplemental agreement of 30th April 2016 extended the completion date to 31st December 2016. The defendant paid only Kshs.6,250,000 and remained in possession, allegedly farming sugarcane, until vacating. The plaintiff sought rescission, possession, mesne profits, forfeiture of all monies paid, damages, costs and interest. The defendant denied breach, asserting the plaintiff frustrated the contract by withholding Land Control Board consent and refusing to collect cheques, and opposed forfeiture. The court framed four issues: breach, frustration, entitlement to orders, and costs. It found clear breach of both agreements, rejecting the frustration defence as unproven since the defendant called no evidence on it. On remedies, the court granted immediate vacant possession and forfeiture of the Kshs.6,250,000 paid, holding that clause 3.4 of the supplemental agreement replaced clause 7.1 of the principal agreement. However, mesne profits failed because the plaintiff's expert report was unreliable on acreage, and damages for breach were refused because special damages were not specifically pleaded and general damages are unavailable for breach of contract. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on prayers (a), (b), (d) and (f), with costs, the remainder dismissed. Note: a pending notice of appeal against a ruling reopening the defence case did not stay the judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Breach of the sale and supplemental agreements

Holding

The defendant breached both agreements by failing to pay the full purchase price of Kshs.10,744,500, having paid only Kshs.6,250,000 by the extended completion date of 31st December 2016.

Reasoning

The principal agreement dated 14th May 2015 was binding, fixing the purchase price at Kshs.10,744,500 payable by instalments ending 30th November 2015. The defendant paid only Kshs.6,250,000, an amount the plaintiff admitted. The execution of a supplemental agreement extending completion to 31st December 2016 demonstrated the defendant's earlier default. Even after extension, payment was not completed, and the defendant did not deny non-payment. This constituted a clear breach of both agreements.

p. 4
02

Alleged frustration of contract by the plaintiff

Holding

The claim of frustration failed for want of proof; the defendant produced no evidence of the alleged LCB consent refusal, fresh price demands, or refusal to collect cheques.

Reasoning

The defendant alleged that the plaintiff frustrated the contract by failing to obtain Land Control Board consent, demanding a higher price and refusing to collect cheques. However, no witness or evidence was produced to substantiate these claims. Applying the rule that he who alleges must prove, and authority that unproved defence allegations are mere allegations, the court rejected the frustration defence, noting also that frustration must arise without the fault of either party.

p. 5
03

Entitlement to possession, mesne profits, forfeiture and damages

Holding

Immediate vacant possession and forfeiture of all monies paid (Kshs.6,250,000) were granted, but mesne profits and damages were refused.

Reasoning

Having found breach, the court granted immediate vacant possession under Order 21 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Clause 3.4 of the supplemental agreement replaced clause 7.1 of the principal agreement, providing for forfeiture of all monies paid upon default, justifying prayer (d). Mesne profits failed because PW1's report was based on a wrong acreage (200 acres instead of 71) and could not establish the loss. Damages failed because special damages were not specifically pleaded and general damages are unavailable for breach of contract.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging frustration of contract must prove it; frustrating circumstances must arise without the fault of either party and must not be self-induced.
  • Where a defendant does not adduce evidence, its allegations in the defence remain mere allegations and the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence is to be believed.
  • Special damages must be specifically pleaded before they can be awarded, and no general damages may be awarded for breach of contract.
  • Costs follow the event unless there is good reason to depart from that rule (Section 27, Civil Procedure Act).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant.
  2. 2.Prayers (a), (b), (d) and (f) of the amended plaint dated 5th March 2021 are granted (declaration of rescission and wrongful possession, immediate possession with crops and improvements, forfeiture of monies paid, and costs).
  3. 3.The rest of the prayers (mesne profits and damages for breach) are dismissed.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 13
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27

Cases cited (10)

  • Davis Contractors Ltd versus Farehum U.D.C. (1956) AC 696
    (1956) AC 696
  • Rono v Lomsons Enterprises (Civil Case 5 of 2019) [2024] KEHC 6249 (KLR)
    [2024] KEHC 6249 (KLR) (31 May 2024)
  • North End Trading Company Limited (Carrying on the Business Under the Registered Name of) Kenya Refuse Handlers Limited v City Council of Nairobi [2019] eKLR
    [2019] eKLR
  • Edward Muriga Through Stanley Muriga vs. Nathaniel D. Schulter Civil Appeal No.23 of 1997
    Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1997
  • Motex Knitwear Limited vs. Gopitex Knitwear Mills Limited Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC No.834 of 2002
    HCCC No. 834 of 2002
  • Autar Singh Bahra And Another v Raju Govindji, HCCC No. 548 of 1998
    HCCC No. 548 of 1998
  • Karuru Munyororo v Joseph Ndumia Murage & Another Nyeri HCCC No. 95 of 1988
    HCCC No. 95 of 1988
  • Idi Ayub Omar Shabani v City Council of Nairobi and Another Civil Appeal 52 of 1984
    Civil Appeal 52 of 1984
  • Bohham-Carter versus Hyde Park Hotel Ltd (1948) 64 Times Law Reports, 117
    (1948) 64 Times Law Reports 117
  • Provincial Insurance Co. EA Ltd v Mordekai Mwanga Nandwa, KSM CACA 179 of 1995
    KSM CACA 179 of 1995
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute relating to land in Kwale County

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rimber v Unifresh Exotics (K) Limited (Environment and Land Case 427 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 4917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of Mombasa (amended plaint dated 5th March 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4917/eng@2025-07-02

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