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

Olegasalie New Properties Limited v Lematasho (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6465 (KLR) (24 September 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEELC 6465 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
6465
Citation
[2025] KEELC 6465 (KLR)
Decided
24 September 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand Sale Dispute AppealPostureAppeal from the judgment of the Chief Magistrate's CourtCoramMD MWANGI
Holding

This Court finds that the existence of two contradictory agreements on the same transaction, each with different consideration, demonstrated that there was no genuine meeting of minds between the parties. Therefore, the contracts could not be said to be valid and enforceable.

Facts

The Appellant, Olegasalie New Properties Limited, initiated a suit against the Respondent, Jeremiah Parkimian Ole Lematasho, for a refund of money allegedly paid for the purchase of a parcel of land. Two agreements were presented, one dated 30th July 2014 and another dated 17th September 2014, both regarding the same land but with different purchase prices.

Issues

  1. Whether the agreements satisfied the legal requirements of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
  2. Whether there was consensus ad idem between the parties
  3. Whether the Appellant could be found to have been in breach of the agreements
  4. Whether the trial court discharged its constitutional and judicial duty
  5. Whether the reliefs granted by the trial court were proper and legally sustainable
  6. What orders ought to be made as to costs

Reasoning

The agreements were in writing and signed by the parties, but the contradictory nature of the purchase prices rendered them incapable of enforcement. The court emphasized the need for a genuine meeting of minds on essential terms, particularly the subject matter and the consideration.

Outcome

The appeal is upheld, and the judgment of the trial court is set aside.

Orders

  • The judgment of the trial court is set aside.
  • The Appellant is ordered to refund the Respondent the deposit of Kshs. 3,000,000 and the value of the Toyota Harrier.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay the Respondent Kshs. 6,000,000 in damages.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay the Respondent Kshs. 1,000,000 in costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Law of Contract Act, Cap 23 Laws of Kenya
  • Auctioneers Act (Cap. 526)
Cases cited (3)
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd and another [2001] eKLR
  • Pius Kimaiyo Langat v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd [2017] eKLR
  • Charles Mwirigi Miriti v Thananga Tea Growers Sacco Ltd & another [2014] eKLR
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case