Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal (Nairobi)· [1995] KECA 152 (KLR)

Peter H. Gakere & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [1995] KECA 152 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
21 July 1995
1,200 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a loan taken before your company exists is your personal debt, and incorporation does not wipe it out.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (Akiwumi, Tunoi and Shah JJA) dismissed most of the appellants' appeal against judgment for the bank on loan facilities of about Kshs 136,000 secured by first legal charges over land belonging to the Gakeres. The core question was whether the loan had been advanced to Mr and Mrs Gakere personally or to Mwanga Complex Company Limited, incorporated on 19th July 1978. The court held that the loan was offered by the bank's letter of 30th May 1978 and accepted on 12th June 1978, both before the company existed, so the debt lay with the Gakeres. Salomon v Salomon, cited by the appellants, was irrelevant to that principle of separate corporate personality; conversion of a firm into a company does not absolve the partners of existing liabilities, and the Gakeres were attempting to palm the debt onto a defunct company. The trial judge's findings that Mr Gakere was dishonest and unreliable, based on demeanour, were not disturbed. Paying-in slips merely showed company accounts and did not alter the original contract. However, the court held the judge erred in implying a trust over LR No 209/7383/342 in favour of the bank, following the Privy Council in Ayoub: a trust is never implied or presumed except in absolute necessity. As the debt had largely been paid, the appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the orders under prayer (iii)(b) of the amended plaint, otherwise dismissed, with the respondent awarded 4/5ths of the costs of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Identity of the borrower: individuals or the company

Holding

The loan was advanced to Mr & Mrs Gakere personally, as the offer and acceptance predated the company's incorporation on 19th July 1978.

Reasoning

The letter of offer of 30th May 1978 and acceptance of 12th June 1978 both predated incorporation. The paying-in slips relied on by the appellants only evidenced company accounts with the bank and did not alter the original contract, which was for a loan to the Gakeres.

p. 2
02

Relevance of Salomon v Salomon / lifting the corporate veil

Holding

Salomon's principle of independent corporate existence had no relevance because the debt arose before the company existed; the Gakeres were attempting to palm off the debt onto a defunct company.

Reasoning

Salomon confirms only a company's separate legal personality. Here the company was not the contracting party; its later existence could not attract the debt. The conversion of a firm into a company does not absolve partners of existing liabilities.

p. 2
03

Implied trust over LR No 209/7383/342

Holding

The learned judge erred in holding that Mr Gakere held the property on trust for himself and the bank; a trust cannot be implied or deemed absent absolute necessity.

Reasoning

Relying on the Privy Council's decision in Ayoub, which endorsed Newbold JA's dissent and Cook v Fountain, the court held trusts are never implied by law or presumed by the court except in absolute necessity. However, nothing turned on this as the debt had been substantially paid.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A loan offered to and accepted by an individual before incorporation of a company binds the individual, not the company, and subsequent incorporation of a company does not absolve the firm or its partners from pre-existing liabilities.
  • Conversion of a firm into a limited liability company does not per se absolve the firm from its liabilities, which remain on the partners even after dissolution of the firm.
  • A trust cannot simply be implied or deemed to be created; the law never implies and the court never presumes a trust except in case of absolute necessity.
  • An appellate court will not reverse findings of fact based on the trial judge's assessment of demeanour absent grounds to do so.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed to the extent of disallowing and setting aside orders made in terms of prayer (iii)(b) of the amended plaint
  2. 2.Appeal otherwise dismissed
  3. 3.Respondent awarded 4/5ths of its costs of the appeal

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Salomon vs Salomon & Co Ltd
    (1897) AC 22
  • Ayoub vs Standard Bank of SA
    [1961] EA 743
  • Ayoub & another vs Standard Bank of SA & another
    [1963] EA 619
  • Cook vs Fountain
    (36 ER at p 987)
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter H. Gakere & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [1995] KECA 152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1995). Civil Appeal (Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1995/152/eng@1995-07-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.