Malii v Mukonzi (Environment & Land Case 87 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 45 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the suit property belongs to the plaintiff
Key legal issues
#Ownership of Plot No 18 Nthongoni Market
The suit property validly belongs to the defendant, who procedurally obtained registration in his name
The plaintiff admitted altering the purchase price figure in the November 21, 2009 agreement after execution. He also freely executed the March 14, 2010 agreement in which he acknowledged receipt of the full purchase price and consented to transfer. The defendant applied for and obtained registration, paid registration fees, and was reflected as proprietor in the County Government records. The plaintiff is estopped under section 120 of the Evidence Act from denying his attested declaration.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped from denying receipt of the full purchase price
Yes; the plaintiff is estopped under section 120 of the Evidence Act from denying his declaration in clause 4 of the March 14, 2010 agreement
The declaration was duly attested before three competent witnesses, one of whom was DW2. Having freely executed the agreement acknowledging receipt of the full purchase price, the plaintiff could not resile from it. The parties are bound by their contract and the court cannot rewrite the bargain absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence.
Legal principles established
#- A court of law cannot rewrite a contract between parties; parties are bound by the terms of their contract unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over the ownership dispute relating to Plot No 18 Nthongoni Market
Relief refused
#A declaration that Plot No 18 Nthongoni Market is the sole property of the plaintiff
The court found the defendant procedurally obtained registration and the plaintiff is estopped from denying receipt of the full purchase price
Kshs 215,000 with mesne profits or monthly rent of Kshs 15,000 or eviction of the defendant
The claim rested on an alleged non-payment of purchase price which the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities
Costs
The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendant
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.
A court of law cannot re-write a contract between the parties. The parties are bound by the terms of their contract, unless coercion, fraud or undue infiuence are pleaded and proved.
It is clear beyond peradventure that save for those special cases where equity might be prepared to relieve a party from a bad bargain, it is ordinarily no part of equity's function to allow a party to escape from a bad bargain
Needless to state, it is manifestly clear that the defendant procedurally obtained registration of the suit property in his name.
The upshot is that the is suit herein is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The pleading figure of Kshs 1,028,000 is internally inconsistent with the pleaded components (460,000 structures plus purchase price of 560,000 = 1,020,000, not 1,028,000)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malii v Mukonzi (Environment & Land Case 87 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 45 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/45/eng@2023-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.