land sale
Content
SKELETAL ARGUMENTS
1.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2007, The Defendant bought Plot number 49/1/189 from
Mr Stephen Kamoto for the price of MK400,000.00( FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND KWACHA), thus the Defendant
became the rightful owner of the said plot. However,
subsequently, the Plaintiff in the matter herein began
claiming to have purchased the same plot from Mr Stephen
Kamoto, and has been claiming to be the rightful owner of
the land.
2. ISSUES
-Whether the Defendant is the rightful owner of plot number
49/1/189
3. THE LAW
3.1 By way of a sale agreement dated 12th January,2007,
Mr Stephen Kamoto agreed to transfer the title deed of plot
number 49/1/89 to the Defendant Mr Mark Hastings Blake.
The said transaction was to be made in conseration for the
sum of MK400,000.00. The agreement was signed by both
Mr Stephen Kamoto and the Defendant. In Zambezi
Packaging Ltd v Mpungulira Trading Ltd [1995] 1 MLR
373 (HC), it was established that were a sale agreement for
land was made, that alone is enough to establish a valid
binding contract between the two parties that signed the
agreement. In this case, it was further emphasized that in
cases of sale agreements of land, a party is bound by the
contents of the documents which it executed. In supporting
this view the dictum of Scrutton LJ in L’Estrange v Graucob
Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 at 403 was used:
“Where a document containing contractual terms is signed,
then in the absence of fraud, or I will add, misrepresentation,
the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial
whether he has read the document or not.”
This is further enforced by Mkandawire v Wawanya [1992]
15 MLR 270 (HC) , in which it was stated that if a valid
contract of sale of land had come into being, then the
purchaser should be the rightful owner of the said land.
3.2 With this being said, it can be certain that since the
Defendant in the case at hand entered a sale agreement
with Mr Stephen Kamoto, the same Mr Stephen Kamoto was
legally bound to follow through with the transfer of the land
to the Defendant. The Defendant did pay the purchase price
of MK400,000.OO, and thus Mr Stephan Kamoto should have
transferred the title deeds to the Defendant as per the sale
agreement. The Plaintiff in the matter herein claims to have
purchased the same land from Mr Stephen Kamoto, and
claims to be the rightful owner. However, the purchase of the
Plaintiff was not legitimate, considering that the Defendant
was in a legally binding contract with Mr Stephen Kamoto,
and thus Mr Stephen Kamoto was in no position to give the
land to the Plaintiff, especially after having received the
money for the land from the Defendant in 2007. It is clear
that the Plaintiff became registered as the owner of the land
through frauduent means and fraudulent entries in the land
registry. It is also clear that the Defendant, being the original
purchaser, cannot be possibly tresspassing, as he is the
rightful owner of the land.
4.SUBMISSION
It is the prayer of the Defendant that he is found to be the
rightful owner of plot 49/1/189, as he was the original
purchaser of the plot by way of contract for the sale of land.
It is further prayed that it is found that the Defendant is not
trespassing on the said plot, as he is the rightful owner.
1.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2007, The Defendant bought Plot number 49/1/189 from
Mr Stephen Kamoto for the price of MK400,000.00( FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND KWACHA), thus the Defendant
became the rightful owner of the said plot. However,
subsequently, the Plaintiff in the matter herein began
claiming to have purchased the same plot from Mr Stephen
Kamoto, and has been claiming to be the rightful owner of
the land.
2. ISSUES
-Whether the Defendant is the rightful owner of plot number
49/1/189
3. THE LAW
3.1 By way of a sale agreement dated 12th January,2007,
Mr Stephen Kamoto agreed to transfer the title deed of plot
number 49/1/89 to the Defendant Mr Mark Hastings Blake.
The said transaction was to be made in conseration for the
sum of MK400,000.00. The agreement was signed by both
Mr Stephen Kamoto and the Defendant. In Zambezi
Packaging Ltd v Mpungulira Trading Ltd [1995] 1 MLR
373 (HC), it was established that were a sale agreement for
land was made, that alone is enough to establish a valid
binding contract between the two parties that signed the
agreement. In this case, it was further emphasized that in
cases of sale agreements of land, a party is bound by the
contents of the documents which it executed. In supporting
this view the dictum of Scrutton LJ in L’Estrange v Graucob
Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 at 403 was used:
“Where a document containing contractual terms is signed,
then in the absence of fraud, or I will add, misrepresentation,
the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial
whether he has read the document or not.”
This is further enforced by Mkandawire v Wawanya [1992]
15 MLR 270 (HC) , in which it was stated that if a valid
contract of sale of land had come into being, then the
purchaser should be the rightful owner of the said land.
3.2 With this being said, it can be certain that since the
Defendant in the case at hand entered a sale agreement
with Mr Stephen Kamoto, the same Mr Stephen Kamoto was
legally bound to follow through with the transfer of the land
to the Defendant. The Defendant did pay the purchase price
of MK400,000.OO, and thus Mr Stephan Kamoto should have
transferred the title deeds to the Defendant as per the sale
agreement. The Plaintiff in the matter herein claims to have
purchased the same land from Mr Stephen Kamoto, and
claims to be the rightful owner. However, the purchase of the
Plaintiff was not legitimate, considering that the Defendant
was in a legally binding contract with Mr Stephen Kamoto,
and thus Mr Stephen Kamoto was in no position to give the
land to the Plaintiff, especially after having received the
money for the land from the Defendant in 2007. It is clear
that the Plaintiff became registered as the owner of the land
through frauduent means and fraudulent entries in the land
registry. It is also clear that the Defendant, being the original
purchaser, cannot be possibly tresspassing, as he is the
rightful owner of the land.
4.SUBMISSION
It is the prayer of the Defendant that he is found to be the
rightful owner of plot 49/1/189, as he was the original
purchaser of the plot by way of contract for the sale of land.
It is further prayed that it is found that the Defendant is not
trespassing on the said plot, as he is the rightful owner.
