SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Irungu Kihuni v Wambugu Gakunga & another [1986] KECA 12 (KLR)

[1986] KECA 12 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
12
Citation
[1986] KECA 12 (KLR)
Decided
9 October 1986
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nyeri (Patel J)CoramNyarangi J A, Hancox & Nyarangi, JJ A & Gachuhi, Ag J A
Holding

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

In 1951, the deceased father of Wambugu Gakunga and the appellant entered into an agreement to construct commercial premises on plot number 10, Mweiga Trading Centre, Nyeri. The first respondent contributed Shs 4,416.15, the father of the second respondent Shs 3,657.00, the father of the first respondent Shs 7,000,000.00, and the appellant Shs 3,222.50. The appellant applied for a lease in his name, and the respondents claimed an interest in the premises.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an agreement between parties that in consideration of the 4 persons named in paragraph 5 of the plaint, to construct a commercial building on the land in dispute, the defendant would apply to the Commissioner of Lands for lease in the joint names of parties to the said agreement.
  2. If there was such an agreement, whether persons named in para 5 of the plaint contributed towards the construction of the building.
  3. If so, what was the contribution of each party.
  4. The share in the property to which each party is entitled.
  5. Whether a declaration be made that the parties make a joint application for lease from the Commissioner of Lands.
  6. If parties not entitled to a declaration, are plaintiffs entitled to compensation, and if so, the amount of compensation.

Reasoning

The learned judge erred in law in dismissing the application whilst the award was not in accordance with the law.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondents’ claim for joint application for a lease was dismissed.
  • The respondents’ claim for compensation was dismissed.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case