Vekaria & another v Njue (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7306 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court ordered an apartment seller to secure the buyer's sectional title within 180 days, warning developers that years of inaction carry real legal consequences.
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 defendant and the plaintiffs entered into an agreement for sale of an apartment dated 24/2/2012
- 2.Whether the plaintiffs paid in full all the consideration price to the defendant
- 3.Whether the plaintiffs took occupation of the apartment sold
- 4.Whether the defendant is a trustee holding the purchased apartment in trust for the plaintiffs under the doctrine of constructive trust
- 5.Whether the defendant has failed to prepare, process and complete the sectional properties title in favour of the plaintiffs in breach of the Sectional Properties Act
- 6.Whether the defendant has failed to incorporate or form and register a corporation within Section 17 of the Sectional Properties Act No. 21 of 2020
- 7.Whether the defendant ought to be compelled to conclude all the requisite steps for issuance of a sectional property title and to establish a corporation pursuant to Section 17 of the Act
- 8.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought plus costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant discharged his obligations under Sections 4 and 5 of the Sectional Properties Act to prepare and register a sectional plan
He did not; for 13 years he took no steps, engaging a surveyor only after being served with suit papers, and the sectional plan was neither procured nor presented for registration
The sale agreement contained no timelines, but the defendant was served in April 2024, 12 years after the transaction. His surveyor's report of June 2024 revealed encroachment onto the abutting road requiring resurvey and realignment, yet no evidence showed he acted on that professional advice. The 13-year delay was inordinate and he blamed the Land Registry without evidence that any registrable instrument had been lodged.
Whether the defendant constituted the corporation required under Section 17 of the Act
He did not; the Penthouse Suites Apartments Management Limited company under the Companies Act was not the Section 17 corporation
The corporation contemplated under Section 17 is not a company under the Companies Act, which the Act expressly precludes from applying to it. It stands automatically constituted on registration of the sectional plan with all unit owners as members. The exhibited certificate of incorporation named the defendant and his mother as the only directors and shareholders, which does not meet the statutory framework.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought
Yes; questions 1 to 8 answered in the affirmative, with the compliance period enhanced to 180 days
The plaintiffs proved full payment and possession, and the defendant did not contest their beneficial ownership. The defendant failed to show compliance with the Act or that delays lay with the Land Registry. The court found the case proved on a balance of probabilities and granted the substantive reliefs, extending the completion period to 180 days.
Legal principles established
#- The obligation to prepare, procure and register a sectional plan and to constitute the corporation under the Sectional Properties Act lies with the developer/owner of the mother title.
- A management company registered under the Companies Act is not the corporation contemplated under Section 17 of the Sectional Properties Act; that corporation stands automatically constituted upon registration of the sectional plan with all unit owners as members.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are granted as prayed
- 2.The defendant is decreed to complete all actions, processes and steps required to procure issuance of a sectional property title for Apartment No 3, 2nd Floor, Building No 1, LR No Ntima/Igoki/5402 within 180 days from the date of the judgment
- 3.In default, the Deputy Registrar of the Court shall execute all relevant instruments and the plaintiffs shall undertake the said processes and procure the sectional title, all at the cost of the defendant
- 4.Parties will bear their respective costs of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Sectional Properties Act No. 21 of 2020 and Order 37 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Costs of the suit against the defendant
The dispute arose because both parties overlooked defining contractual timelines; each party to bear its own costs
Costs
Parties will bear their respective costs of the suit (each party to bear their own costs).
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.
From the evidence on record, other than engaging a surveyor upon being served with suit papers relating to this case, there is nothing to suggest that the defendant was or is undertaking his obligations under Sections 4 and 5 of the Sectional Properties Act. The 13-year delay is, without doubt, inordinate.
The corporation contemplated under Section 17 of the Act stands automatically constituted upon registration of a sectional plan. The registration number of the corporation is the number assigned to the sectional plan on registration.
the court is satisfied that the plaintifis have proved their case on a balance of probabilities and enters judgment in their favour and against the defendant as follows
In default of the defendant procuring the sectional title, the Deputy Registrar of this Court shall execute all the relevant instruments and the plaintifis shall undertake the said processes, actions and steps, including the processes recommended by the surveyor, and procure the sectional title, all at the cost of the defendant.
Parties will bear their respective costs of this suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Defendant's written submissions date printed as '341/7/2025', an apparent typographical error
Paragraph 32 answers questions 1 to 7 in the affirmative including constructive trust, though the judgment's analysis focuses on the Sections 5 and 17 obligations
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Vekaria & another v Njue (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7306 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Originating Summons dated 22/3/2024 (Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7306/eng@2025-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.