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

David Muigai Ng’ang’a v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited & another [2015] KEELC 760 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 760 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
760
Citation
[2015] KEELC 760 (KLR)
Decided
16 January 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeContract DisputePostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at NairobiCoramJ. L. ONGUTO
Holding

The Plaintiff is not entitled to an order of specific performance and the claim for the amount of Kshs. 625,000/=

Facts

The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an order of specific performance and compensation for loss of use of land. The Defendants disputed the claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of specific performance.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for the claim of Kshs. 625,000/=

Reasoning

The Plaintiff failed to present evidence to support his claim, and the possibility that the cheque was never presented for payment is a possibility.

Outcome

The Plaintiff is awarded Kshs. 4,400,000/= in refund of the purchase price and interest, and costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant in the sum of Kshs. 4,400,000/= in refund of the purchase price.
  • Interest at the simple court rates of 14% p.a effective the date of filing suit until full payment.
  • The Plaintiff will have costs of the suit to be paid by the 2nd Defendant.
  • The suit against the 1st Defendant is dismissed but with no orders as to costs.

Remedies

  • Refund of the purchase price of Kshs. 4,400,000/=

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Evidence Act
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