A businessman in Nairobi has been granted a reprieve by the Court of Appeal after facing the risk of losing his Sh10 million property over a Sh300,000 debt.
Lady Justice Hellen Amolo Omondi presided over the case and considered the businessman’s agreement to purchase the property in 2017, which stipulated payment in installments.
Initially, the businessman had cleared Sh3 million and later paid the property owner Sh6.68 million, with the promise to settle the remaining Sh300,000.
However, in 2018, the same property was sold to a bank that matched the asking price of Sh10 million.
After paying the requested amount and signing the necessary documents, the bank took possession of the property.
The bank subsequently filed a lawsuit in March 2018 and placed a caveat on the property.
Meanwhile, the businessman, feeling aggrieved by these developments, contested the sale and the caveat in Makueni, arguing that as the owner, he had the right to develop the land.
He accused the initial property owner of fraudulently dealing with him, despite his commitment to settling the outstanding balance.
At the time, the bank allegedly occupied the property and collected monthly rent. The court documents revealed that the respondents eventually filed a suit in the Environmental Land Court at Makueni against the businessman and the bank, seeking various remedies.
These included specific performance, eviction of the businessman from the property, a permanent injunction to prevent interference, transfer, or alienation of the property, removal of the bank’s caution, and recovery of monthly rents.
In the first instance, the High Court ruled in favor of the businessman, confirming his rightful acquisition of the property and ordering the bank’s eviction.
Dissatisfied with this decision, both the bank and the seller sought legal redress at the Court of Appeal.
In a ruling delivered on June 22, Lady Justice Amolo upheld the High Court’s verdict, thereby providing relief to the respondent.
However, she stipulated that the businessman must settle the outstanding Ksh300,000 balance before assuming complete ownership of the land.
The summary of the ruling stated, “The judge did not merely order the applicant to transfer the 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 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.”
