Purity Ndirangu v Anthony Karanja & 2 others [2019] KECA 762 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that buyers of estate land keep their purchases even after the seller's administrative grant is revoked.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the review of the Koome, J.'s ruling was warranted.
- 2.Whether the trial court was right in holding that the appellant had no interest in the suit land.
- 3.Whether the trial court was right in recognizing the sale agreement of the suit land by the appellant to the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
Key legal issues
#Whether the review of the 2005 revocation orders was warranted
The review was warranted because the suit property had lawfully been sold to the 2nd and 3rd respondents before the revocation, and section 93 of the Law of Succession Act validated the transaction notwithstanding the revocation.
The court noted that by the date of Koome, J.'s revocation ruling the suit property had already been sold, subdivided and title deeds issued. It was unclear whether the judge's attention had been drawn to that fact. Section 93 validates transfers by persons to whom representation has been granted despite subsequent revocation, so the bona fide purchasers were justified in seeking review to protect their interests.
Whether the appellant had any interest in the suit land
The appellant had no interest in the suit land having lawfully sold it and used the sale proceeds to purchase land at Mweiga; allowing her to reclaim any share would be unjust enrichment.
The appellant did not dispute receipt of Kshs.1,300,000 as purchase price nor that she used part of it to buy six acres at Mweiga registered in her name in 2000. The court endorsed the learned judge's finding that it would be unconscionable and inequitable for her to benefit twice from a situation of her own making, invoking the principle that equity detests unjust enrichment.
Whether the sale agreement between the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be recognized
The sale agreement was recognized because the 2nd and 3rd respondents were bona fide purchasers for value whose transaction was validated by section 93 of the Law of Succession Act.
It was not disputed that the respondents were bona fide purchasers for value who paid the full consideration of Kshs.1,300,000. The court applied its own decision in Jacinta Wanja Kamau and held that section 93 protects such purchasers even where the grant under which the seller acted is subsequently revoked or varied.
Legal principles established
#- Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects a bona fide purchaser of property from a person who has obtained a grant of representation, even if that grant is subsequently revoked or varied.
- A court cannot allow a person to benefit from his own wrongdoing; equity detests unjust enrichment.
- A purchaser whose transaction predates the revocation of a grant may seek review of revocation orders to protect interests lawfully acquired.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya, Nairobi
- Succession Cause No. 1574 of 1994
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (succession cause) under the law governing appellate jurisdiction in civil succession matters
Relief refused
#The appellant's appeal against the ruling of Kimaru, J. allowing review of the orders of 25th January 2005
The 2nd and 3rd respondents were bona fide purchasers protected by section 93 of the Law of Succession Act and were justified in seeking review; the appellant had sold the suit land and used the proceeds to purchase land at Mweiga
Costs
The appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
All in all, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it in its entirety. The appellant shall bear the costs of the appeal.
Section 93 of the Law of Succession Act protects a bona fide purchaser of any property from a person who has obtained a grant of representation, even if that grant is subsequently revoked or varied.
It is trite law that a court cannot allow a person to benefit from his own wrong doing; equity detests unjust enrichment.
In the circumstances, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were justified in seeking a review of the orders made on 25th January, 2005 to protect their interests in the suit property, which they had lawfully acquired.
Issues in the judgment
#The 1st respondent Anthony Karanja is referred to as '1st appellant' in paragraph 1 while the cause title lists him as 1st respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Purity Ndirangu v Anthony Karanja & 2 others [2019] KECA 762 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/762/eng@2019-05-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.