A Court of Appeal in Nairobi, on Thursday, June 22, saved a businessman from losing his property valued at Ksh10 million over a Ksh300,000 balance.
Lady Justice Hellen Amolo Omondi heard that the businessman entered into an agreement to buy the property in 2017 and agreed to pay for it in instalments.
He first cleared Ksh3 million and later gave the property owner Ksh6.68 million with a promise to clear the remaining Ksh300,000.
However, in 2018, the same property was sold to a bank which matched the asking price of Ksh10 million. The institution further occupied the said property after paying the asking price and signing relevant documents.
Further, the bank moved to court and placed a caveat on the property in March 2018.
Aggrieved by the decision, the businessman contested the sale and the caveat in Makueni, arguing that he had a right to develop the land as its owner.
He accused the property owner of defrauding him despite being committed to clearing the Ksh300,000 balance.
At that time, the local bank had allegedly occupied the said property and was collecting monthly rent.
"Ultimately, the respondents filed a suit in the Environmental Land Court at Makueni against the applicant and the bank seeking, among others, an order of specific performance, eviction of the applicant from the suit property, a permanent injunction to stop the applicant and the bank from interfering with, transferring or alienating the suit property, removal of the caution by the bank; and recovery of monthly rents being collected by the applicant from the suit property," the court documents read in part.
The High Court ruled that the first businessman rightfully acquired the property and ordered the bank to be evicted from the property.
Aggrieved by the ruling, the bank and the seller sought legal redress at the Court of Appeal.
In a ruling which was delivered on Thursday, June 22, Lady Justice Amolo, upheld the High Court ruling, offering the respondent relief.
She, however, ordered the businessman to clear the Ksh300,000 balance before taking ownership of the land.
"The judge did not merely order the applicant to transfer the suit property to the respondents: he directed the respondents to pay the balance of the purchase price to the applicant as a condition for transfer of the suit property because they satisfied the court that they were able, ready and willing to pay the amount save for the caution placed on the title by the bank," a summary of the ruling read in part.
