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

Voi Development Company Limited v Agam Investments Limited [2016] KECA 416 (KLR)

[2016] KECA 416 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
416
Citation
[2016] KECA 416 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the High Court of Kenya at MombasaCoramINOTI, Kasango, Odero
Holding

The court found that the appellant sold the suit properties to the respondent and that the respondent is the legal owner. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were not innocent purchasers and were not entitled to specific performance or injunctions.

Facts

The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for the sale of 8 plots of land, including the suit properties. The respondent paid the purchase price and occupied the suit properties. The appellant later sold the suit properties to third parties without the respondent's consent.

Issues

  1. Did the appellant sell the suit properties to the respondent?
  2. Who is the legal owner of the suit properties?
  3. Were the 2nd and 3rd defendants innocent purchasers?
  4. Is the appellant entitled to specific performance and injunctions?

Reasoning

The court concluded that the appellant sold the suit properties to the respondent and that the respondent is the legal owner. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were not innocent purchasers and were not entitled to specific performance or injunctions.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

Orders

  • Judgment in favor of the respondent
  • Award of costs to the respondent
  • Downward review of the taxed bill of costs
  • Review of the decree directing the transfer of the suit properties
  • Contempt of court application

Remedies

  • None
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case