Sisto Wambugu v Kamau Njuguna [1983] KECA 69 (KLR)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 69
- Citation
- [1983] KECA 69 (KLR)
The appeal is allowed. The appellant is granted orders to evict the respondent, an injunction is granted, the caution entered by the respondent is vacated, and the respondent's counterclaim is dismissed.
Facts
The appellant, Sisto Wambugu, claimed that he had verbally agreed to allow Kamau Njuguna to cultivate his land at Othaya/Kihugiru/57, but not to plant cash crops. The respondent, Kamau Njuguna, claimed that he had purchased the land from Wambugu for Kshs 2,485 in 1958, with payments made up to July 1966.
Issues
- Was there an oral agreement for the sale of the land?
- Was there an oral agreement for the respondent to enter possession and cultivate the land?
- Had both parties fulfilled their terms?
- Was the respondent in adverse possession of the land for about nineteen years?
Reasoning
The court found that there was an oral contract of sale, but the respondent failed to complete his payments. The respondent was in occupation of the land with the appellant's permission, thus not in adverse possession.
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Orders to evict the respondent
- Injunction permanently restraining the respondent and his family from remaining on the land
- Vacation of the caution entered by the respondent
- Dismissal of the respondent's counterclaim
Remedies
- Eviction of the respondent
- Injunction against the respondent and his family
- Vacation of the caution
Loading judgment…