Kureto & another v Nguli & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 114 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7166 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court terminated a 2010 land sale agreement the buyer never completed and ordered removal of his caution, freeing the owners to sell.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Validity of the sale agreement despite ambiguous purchase price
The clause specified the price though ambiguously, but offer, acceptance and consideration were established and the parties' intention ascertained; however the agreement was found invalid for non-completion
The court found the clause 'the agreed price is not more than Kshs. 150,000 per acre' did specify the price though ambiguously. Applying Michira v Gesima Power Mills Ltd and Shah v Shah, laymen's agreements are interpreted by their sense. The 1st Plaintiff acknowledged receiving Kshs. 400,000–500,000 and portions were excised and titles issued, evidencing a concluded bargain.
Spousal consent
Ground failed because the land was jointly held by both Plaintiffs who both signed the agreement
Since both joint proprietors, Catherine Naiseae ene Partot and Joseph Tenes ole Rureto, executed the sale agreement dated 4th July 2010, the absence of spousal consent could not render the agreement unenforceable.
Removal of caution
The caution lodged by the 1st Defendant should be removed; the claim was uncontroverted
Relying on Section 7.3(1) of the Land Registration Act, the court noted no certificate of official search confirmed the caution but, if present, it ought to be removed. The 1st Defendant did not appear or defend despite substituted service, so the claim was uncontroverted and the Registrar ordered to lift the encumbrance.
Termination of the agreement and limitation
The sale agreement stood terminated, having expired by effluxion of time with no steps to complete
The agreement was made in 2010, the 1st Defendant disappeared around 2015 without paying the balance, and no further steps were taken to complete the transaction. The court held the agreement invalid and terminated, effectively disposing of the limitation argument by termination rather than by striking out on limitation grounds.
Legal principles established
#- A caution may be withdrawn by the cautioner or removed by order of the court or, subject to subsection (2), by order of the Registrar under the Land Registration Act
- Where agreement words are clearly expressed and intention can be discovered from the whole agreement, the court must give effect to the parties' intention, interpreting laymen's agreements without interpolating technical legal concepts
Court orders
#- 1.That the Sale Agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant dated 4th June 2010 stands terminated
- 2.That the Land Registrar Kajiado West is hereby ordered to remove caution, caveat, restriction and or encumbrance lodged or registered at the 1st Defendant request and or any other person authorized by or claiming through him against parcels Kajiado/Loodarak.11339/11340/11342 and 11342 forthwith
- 3.That costs of the suit be borne by the 1st Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; suit transferred from ELC Ngong' Magistrates' Court for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kureto & another v Nguli & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 114 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7166 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (transferred from ELC Ngong' Magistrates' Court), Plaint dated 28th February 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7166/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.