Mathenge & another v Githegi (Environment and Land Case 329 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 1899 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a land seller to complete the transfer because buyers who pay in full and take possession can enforce the deal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the land sale agreement was independent of the business sale agreement
The two agreements were independent; the land sale could not be defeated by disputes over the business sale
The court found that the parties entered into two independent agreements - one for the sale of one acre from L.R. No. 9242/5 and one for the Adult Family Home business. The agreement of 22nd October 2014 did not mention the business, so the Defendant could not rely on the business dealings to resist transferring the land.
Whether the Plaintiffs paid the full purchase price
The Plaintiffs proved payment; the Defendant's claim of a Kshs.2 million balance was unproved and untabulated
The Defendant acknowledged receiving Kshs.8,880,000/- but claimed a Kshs.2 million balance without tabulating how it arose. The court noted she had paid the surveyor Kshs.120,000/- which appeared to be the claimed balance, while the Plaintiffs paid Kshs.80,000/- to the surveyor. Had she genuinely been owed money, she could have filed a counterclaim, which she did not.
Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance
Yes - the contract was valid and enforceable and the Plaintiffs had performed their part
Relying on Reliable Electrical Engineers v Mantrac and Gurdev Singh Birdi, the court held that specific performance is discretionary but just and equitable here: the contract was valid, the Plaintiffs had taken possession in 2014 and remained in occupation, and the Defendant was unlikely to perform voluntarily. The order caused no hardship to the Defendant.
Legal principles established
#- A plaintiff seeking specific performance must show that he has performed all the terms of the contract he undertook to perform
- Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy granted on established principles where the contract is valid and enforceable
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the Plaintiffs proved their case on a balance of probabilities and are entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 22nd October 2014
- 2.The Defendant to provide the original documents necessary for the transfer of one acre of the suit land to the Plaintiffs within 30 days
- 3.Failing compliance by the Defendant, the Deputy Registrar to sign the transfer documents on her behalf
- 4.General damages for breach of contract declined as not proved
- 5.The Defendant to pay the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a claim for land to be excised from L.R. No. 9242/5 (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathenge & another v Githegi (Environment and Land Case 329 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 1899 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 12th August 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1899/eng@2026-03-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.