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

EDWARD NGUGI NJUGUNA vs GATHI MWANGI [2003] KEHC 793 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 793 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
793
Citation
[2003] KEHC 793 (KLR)
Decided
10 April 2003
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment of the Resident Magistrate at KiambuCoramD.K.S. AGANYANYA, PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Holding

The court sets aside the lower court order and substitutes it with one directing the appellant to pay the respondent Kshs.35,000 with half (1⁄2) costs of this appeal and the case in the lower court to the appellant.

Facts

The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement to sell a 5-acre piece of land for Kshs.80,000. The respondent paid Kshs.45,000, leaving a balance of Kshs.35,000. The respondent claimed the land and demanded a refund of Kshs.80,000, while the appellant claimed the respondent had not paid the full purchase price.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was paid Kshs.80,000 by the respondent
  2. Whether the respondent breached the sale agreement by not paying the balance of Kshs.35,000

Reasoning

The court found that the respondent had paid Kshs.40,000 to the appellant on the same day of the agreement, which was not part of the land transaction. The court interpreted this as the appellant acknowledging receipt of Kshs.75,000, but the respondent paying Kshs.40,000 soon after. The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent Kshs.35,000.

Outcome

Appeal successful

Orders

  • Set aside the lower court order
  • Direct the appellant to pay the respondent Kshs.35,000 with half (1⁄2) costs of this appeal and the case in the lower court to the appellant

Remedies

  • Kshs.35,000 to the respondent
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