Case Analysis

Narok Property Advocate and Lawyer: Unpaid Price in Simalice

A Narok property advocate or land lawyer reviewing unpaid sale money must distinguish a claim for the balance from a basis to restrain the property. In Simalice Construction Company Ltd v Arjan, the seller sought a temporary injunction after title had passed. The court refused because the disputed injury could be compensated in money.

The seller said transfer happened before full payment

The dispute concerned Cis-Mara/Siana “A”/4641 and 2385. The company said the sale price was renegotiated from KSh 41,500,000 to KSh 30,000,000 and that the buyers had not paid the entire revised price.

It alleged that original documents had been handed to the buyers’ advocates for completion and that transfer took place despite an outstanding KSh 5,500,000. It asked the court to restrain entry, possession, alteration and alienation while the suit was pending.

The buyers disputed the payment account

The buyers relied on the March 2022 agreement and an earlier cash payment they said the company had omitted. They described KSh 500,000 as withheld after access was blocked and disputed the seller’s calculation of the balance.

The parties also disagreed over contract variations, further discounts and access for a borehole drilling company. Those conflicting accounts did not become a final money judgment in the December ruling. The court was deciding temporary protection, not finally reconciling every payment.

Payment records and variations needed to be considered together

Someone searching for an advocate for an unpaid property sale price in Narok should supply all versions of the agreement, acknowledgements and the actual payment trail. Identify whether a sum was paid to the company, a director or an advocate, and how the agreement permitted payment.

Cash payments and oral discounts need an explanation supported by available evidence. A table matching each payment to the agreed consideration can expose why the parties give different balances. This is preparation for review, rather than a finding that either disputed calculation was ultimately correct.

The court examined the temporary-injunction requirements

At paragraphs 13–19, the judge discussed protection against threatened waste, damage or alienation and the need for a prima facie case, irreparable harm and an appropriate balance of convenience. An unresolved contract dispute alone did not automatically secure the requested order.

The judge noted the buyers’ registration shown by the September 2022 searches. At paragraph 20, the court found no demonstrated risk of the kind asserted to the property. The existence of transferred title affected the assessment of the seller’s request.

The disputed loss could be expressed in money

At paragraphs 23–24, the court focused on the remaining price dispute. Nearly all the consideration had been received, and the alleged outstanding sum was quantifiable. The company had not established injury that could not be compensated through damages.

That reasoning explains refusal of the injunction. It does not show that the seller had no possible claim for unpaid money or that the buyers were ordered to pay the smaller amount. No final balance was fixed by this ruling.

The motion was dismissed with each side bearing its costs

Paragraph 25 dismissed the October 2022 notice of motion. Each party was to bear its own costs. The order did not cancel the purchasers’ title, undo the sale or award the company’s requested balance.

For a present transaction or enforcement enquiry, obtain later judgments and orders. The December 2022 refusal of interim relief does not by itself establish what the main suit ultimately decided or whether later money was paid.

Documents for a completion dispute

• The original and revised sale agreements.
• Receipts, bank records and disputed cash acknowledgements.
• The document-release and completion correspondence.
• Searches showing when registration changed.
• Evidence of the particular threatened dealing or loss.

Frequently asked questions

Was an injunction granted?

No. The motion failed.

Did the ruling determine the final unpaid balance?

No. It addressed temporary relief.

Editorial analysis of the cited decision. Source checked 4 October 2026. The court’s findings and practical commentary are distinct; later proceedings may affect a live dispute.