Jack Wavamunno v Kai anderson & oers (Civil Suit No. 33 of 1996)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that the Share Transfer Agreement was invalid for failure to comply with formalities required by law and the company's Articles of Association—it was neither signed nor sealed by the corporate parties. However, the 2nd Defendant breached its duty under the Power of Attorney to repay the EDF loan, resulting in loss of the Plaintiff's mortgaged land. Judgment was entered against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for 40% of the land's market value, reflecting a pro rata liability arrangement among shareholders.
Outcome
Judgment entered for Plaintiff against 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally for 40% of the land's market value plus interest and costs
Facts
The Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant were shareholders in the 2nd Defendant company (Fishtec). Upon obtaining a loan of ECUs 100,000 from the European Development Fund, the Plaintiff surrendered his land title on Plot 17 Kawuku to the 2nd Defendant for use as security, which was then mortgaged to United Assurance Company. The Plaintiff later agreed to sell his 60 shares to the 1st and 3rd Defendants under an agreement dated 28 June 1995, which provided for payment within 7 days and redemption of the land title within 28 days. The Defendants failed to honour the redemption obligation and the 2nd Defendant failed to repay the EDF loan. Consequently, United Assurance Company sold the mortgaged land in 1996. The parties agreed at scheduling conference that the Plaintiff was the registered proprietor and that the land was sold under the mortgage terms.
Issues
- Whether there was a valid share transfer contract between Plaintiff and the 1st and 3rd Defendants.
- Whether the share transfer was subject to the Memorandum of Understanding amongst the shareholders of the 2nd Defendant.
- Whether Defendants breached the Share Transfer Agreement, and if so whether such breach occasioned loss of Plaintiff's suit land.
- Whether 2nd Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care under the Power of Attorney to ensure repayment of the EDF loan and redemption of Plaintiff's land, and whether breach of that duty occasioned loss.
- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies sought.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 3rd Defendant for failure to file a defence contrary to O.9 r.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The Share Transfer Agreement declared invalid and non-binding.
- Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally for 40% of shs.81,000,000 (the agreed market value of the suit property).
- Interest awarded at 19% per annum from the date of filing suit to date of judgment, and thereafter at Court rate until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Companies Act s.56(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.7
- Local Government Act 1933 s.266
Cases cited (1)
- Wright & Sons Ltd v Romford Borough Council [1957] 1 QB 431
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.