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

Albert Murungi v Moses Kimathi Rinkanya & Another [1989] KEHC 4 (KLR)

[1989] KEHC 4 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4
Citation
[1989] KEHC 4 (KLR)
Decided
19 September 1989
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeReal Property DisputePostureOriginal TrialCoramS. O. G. OGUK
Holding

The court declares the purported sale of land parcel NTIMA/IGOKI/3749 to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant a nullity. The 2nd Defendant is not an innocent purchaser for value of the said land. The Plaintiff will have his costs of the suit against the 1st and 2nd Defendants jointly and severally.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Albert Murungi, claimed that the Defendant, Moses Kimathi Rinkanya, fraudulently transferred land parcel NTIMA/IGOKI/3749 to the 2nd Defendant, M'Rutere M'Mugwika. The Plaintiff alleged that he had previously bought the land from the 1st Defendant for Shs.50,000, but the 1st Defendant had not completed the sale. The 1st Defendant claimed that the agreed price did not include the value of the developments on the land.

Issues

  1. Fraudulent land transfer
  2. Specific performance of contract
  3. Innocent purchaser for value

Reasoning

The court found that the 2nd Defendant had no better title to the land than the 1st Defendant and was not an innocent purchaser for value. The court ordered specific performance of the contract and a transfer of the land to the Plaintiff.

Outcome

The Plaintiff's suit was successful.

Orders

  • Order of inhibition to be registered on land Title Number NTIMA/IGOKI/3749
  • Order for specific performance of the contract

Remedies

  • Specific performance of the contract
  • Transfer of the land to the Plaintiff
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