Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Case No. 42 of 2022· [2025] KEELC 8561 (KLR)

Njogu & 8 others v Thuo Investment Company Limited (Environment and Land Case 42''B'' of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8561 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 December 2025
4,494 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered a land seller to transfer plots to buyers even without a written sale agreement, because the buyers proved they paid in full.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, nine purchasers who bought three plots (3 acres) to be curved out of LR Block No. 1/6428 Thika Kabati from the Defendant company, sued for specific performance. They pleaded that they paid Kesh 2,250,000 in instalments between 2011 and 2012, were issued with Certificates of Allotment Nos. 271A, 271B and 271C, but never received titles; the Director, Joseph Njoroge Thuo, retained their sale agreements and never returned them. The Defendant denied the claims, asserting the Plaintiffs had not paid the full purchase price and owed conveyancing fees. Only PW1 testified for the Plaintiffs, producing receipts and bank statements evidencing the payments. The Defendant, testifying as DW1, appeared evasive, produced no sale agreement, gave no evidence of the alleged full purchase price, and admitted the land was still available upon payment of conveyancing fees. The court noted the absence of a written Sale Agreement as required by Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, but held that equity recognises constructive trusts arising from payment and common intention independently of that provision. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shah v Mombasa Bricks & Tiles and other authorities, the court found common intention, detrimental reliance and unconscionable conduct, holding the Defendant a constructive trustee. Finding no hardship, unconscionability or adequacy of damages barring the remedy, and since the land remained available, the court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs: specific performance compelling transfer of the 3 acres and titles to Plots Nos. 255, 257 and 259, with the Plaintiffs to pay conveyancing fees, plus costs and interest at court rates.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an enforceable contract absent a written Sale Agreement

Holding

Although the absence of the written agreement weakens the case, it is not an absolute bar; equity recognises constructive trusts arising from payment and common intention

Reasoning

The Law of Contract Act requires land dispositions to be in writing, but the court may give effect to oral agreements supported by part performance or find a constructive trust where it would be inequitable for the seller to deny the sale. The Plaintiffs produced receipts proving payment of the full price of Kesh 2,250,000, which the Defendant did not deny, and the Defendant admitted the land was still available.

p. 6
02

Whether a constructive trust was established over the suit property

Holding

A constructive trust arose in favour of the Plaintiffs, making the Defendant a constructive trustee notwithstanding registration in its name

Reasoning

Applying the principles in Shah v Mombasa Bricks & Tiles, the court found common intention, detrimental reliance through payment of the full purchase price, and unconscionable conduct by the Defendant in denying the accrued proprietary right. Registration of the property in the Defendant's name does not vitiate the Plaintiffs' equitable rights.

p. 6
03

Whether specific performance should issue rather than damages or a refund

Holding

Specific performance was granted because the land remained available, damages were inadequate, and forcing the Plaintiffs to accept a refund would be unjust

Reasoning

The Defendant testified that the land is still there and that the only outstanding step was payment of conveyancing fees. Where the property is available, equity demands that the purchaser receive the particular parcels paid for rather than a refund. None of the circumstances barring specific performance (hardship, unconscionability, adequacy of damages) applied.

p. 8
04

Burden and standard of proof

Holding

The burden lay on the Plaintiffs to prove, on a balance of probabilities, a valid enforceable contract and their performance of their obligations

Reasoning

The court reiterated that the party seeking specific performance must demonstrate the existence of the contract and readiness to perform. The Plaintiffs discharged this burden through receipts and bank statements proving full payment, while the Defendant, who claimed non-payment, failed to adduce evidence of the agreed purchase price or the alleged shortfall.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A constructive trust may arise independently of a written agreement under Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act where the purchaser has paid the full purchase price and it would be inequitable for the legal owner to deny the beneficial interest
  • Direct contributions to the purchase price by a non-legal owner justify the inference of a common intention necessary for the creation of a constructive trust

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of specific performance directing the Defendant to transfer to the Plaintiffs the 3 acres of piece of land immediately
  2. 2.An order that the Defendant transfers to the Plaintiffs the titles of Plot No. 255, 257 and 259 in respect of the 3 acres of Block No. 1/6428 Thika Kabati
  3. 3.The Plaintiffs are directed to pay the conveyancing fees to enable the excision and immediate transfer of specific parcels of Block No. 1/6428 Thika Kabati to each Plaintiff
  4. 4.Costs of the suit together with interest thereon at Court rates awarded to the Plaintiffs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes (suit for specific performance of a sale of land); Article 159(2)(d) cited on case management discretion

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njogu & 8 others v Thuo Investment Company Limited (Environment and Land Case 42''B'' of 2022) [2025] KEELC 8561 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case No. 42 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8561/eng@2025-12-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.