Peter K Kiplagat & another v Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
S. Okong’o
Judgment Date
September 24, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 case of Peter K Kiplagat & another v Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered, highlighting key judicial insights and outcomes in this significant legal ruling.

Case Brief: Peter K. Kiplagat & another v Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Peter K. Kiplagat & Pamela Njoki Kagau v. Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees Registered
- Case Number: ELC Suit No. 37 of 2009
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 24th September 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): S. Okong’o
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues, primarily:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 29th November 2005 between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant was breached, and if so, by which party.
2. Whether the defendant was a party to the agreement of sale dated 18th November 2005 between the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.
3. Whether the 2nd plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant arising from either of the agreements.
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought in the plaint.
5. Who is liable for the costs of the suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Peter K. Kiplagat (1st plaintiff) and Pamela Njoki Kagau (2nd plaintiff), initiated the suit alleging that the defendant, Telposta Pension Scheme Trustees, failed to complete a sale agreement for a parcel of land known as Nairobi/Block 5/96 Unit 31. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the defendant on 29th November 2005, paying a deposit of Kshs. 185,000. The 1st plaintiff later sold his interest in the property to the 2nd plaintiff, who took possession and paid the full purchase price. The defendant, however, did not provide the necessary completion documents, leading to the plaintiffs' inability to finalize the transfer.

The defendant admitted the agreement but contended that the 1st plaintiff failed to pay the remaining balance of Kshs. 1,665,000 by the completion date, leading to the cancellation of the agreement and subsequent resale of the property to a third party.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiffs filed their suit on 30th January 2009. The defendant responded with a statement of defense on 23rd February 2009, asserting that the 1st plaintiff had breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance of the purchase price within the stipulated time. The trial included testimonies from both plaintiffs and the defendant's representative, followed by written submissions from both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the terms of the sale agreement and the Law Society Conditions of Sale (1989 Edition), which govern the completion of property transactions in Kenya.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Gurdev Singh Birdi and Marinder Singh Ghatora v. Abubakar Madhubuti* CA No.165 of 1996, which established that a plaintiff must demonstrate performance of all contractual obligations to succeed in a claim for specific performance.
- Application: The court found the 1st plaintiff in breach for not paying the remaining balance on the completion date. The defendant was not obligated to provide completion documents without receiving the full payment. The court also ruled that the 2nd plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant as she was not a party to the original agreement and could not enforce it.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, concluding that they failed to prove their claims against the defendant. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs sought, including specific performance, as the 1st plaintiff had breached the agreement. The court ordered that the defendant be awarded costs.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions as this case was decided by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The court ruled against the plaintiffs, affirming that the 1st plaintiff breached the sale agreement by not paying the balance of the purchase price, and that the 2nd plaintiff had no standing to claim against the defendant. This case underscores the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations and the legal principle that a party cannot enforce a contract to which they are not a party. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar disputes regarding property transactions and contractual performance.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Peter-K-Kiplagat--another-v-Telposta-Pension-Scheme-Trustees-Registered-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1222_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries