7.The Plaintiff herein testified as PW1 and same informed the court that he bought and or purchased 12 plots from the Defendant herein and duly paid for the entire purchase price.
8.It was the witness’ further evidence that after making the payment of the purchase price, the Defendant proceeded to and granted unto the Plaintiff vacant possession of the plots which were purchased and acquired by the witness.
9.On the other hand, the witness further testified that same thereafter proceeded to and commenced construction over and in respect of the 12 properties, which same had bought.
10.Further, the witness testified that while waiting to be issued with the requisite Certificate of lease, same was surprised that the Defendant herein only processed and readied only transfer instruments for three plots out of the twelve plots which had been purchased. In this regard, the witness testified that same made efforts to ascertain the basis and or reason why the Defendant was not transferring all the 12 plots unto him.
11.However, the witness testified that the Defendant became evasive and non-committal on the transfer of the remainder 9 parcels.
12.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the witness further testified that later on, same discovered that the Defendant herein had sold and transferred the remainder 9 plots to known third Parties, including Joseph Wantoro Kamau, Ann Nuna Kimuri and Jacinta Wanjiru Kimori.
13.Owing to the fact that the Defendant had sold the remainder 9 plots, the witness further testified that same was constrained to and issued a demand letter to the Defendant, seeking that the Defendant make the requisite arrangements to transfer unto him the remainder 9 plots or otherwise to pay compensation for the loss of the 9 plots.
14.Be that as it may, it was the witness’ further evidence that despite the demand vide the Notice of intention to sue, the Defendant herein failed and/or neglected to comply with the demand.
15.Based on the failure and/or neglect by the Defendant to comply with and/or adhere to the Demand notice, the witness further testified that same was constrained to and indeed engaged a registered valuer to carryout and undertake valuation in respect of the 9 plots, which the Defendant had reneged on.
16.Pursuant to the foregoing, the witness stated that the valuation report was indeed prepared and same provided/ ascertained the value of the 9 plots as kes.27, 000, 000/= only.
17.Other than the foregoing, the witness further testified that after the filing of the subject suit, wherein same had laid a claim for kes.27, 000, 000/= only, the Defendant again sold and or disposed of one other plot out of the 3 which same had been given.
18.Effectively, the witness stated that out of the total of the 12 plots, the Defendant herein only transferred to and in his favor 2 plots.
19.In view of the foregoing, the witness stated that same was compelled to instruct the valuer to also carryout further valuation in respect to the additional one (1) property which had , similarly, been taken away.
20.In a nutshell, it was the witness’ testimony that having lost the 10 of the 12 plots which same had purchased, same therefore formed the decision to sue the Defendant for payment of reasonable compensation following the loss of the said plot.
21.In short, the witness testified that same is thus entitled to compensation in the sum of kes.30, 500, 000/= only, being the monetary value of the lost plots.