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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 255 of 2016· [2018] KECA 862 (KLR)

Javaid Iqbal Khan & another v Iqbal Transporters Limited & another

Court of Appeal
19 January 2018
3,915 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that borrowers must pay the full secured amount plus interest before a bank must release a charged property.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The appellants, guarantors of Iqbal Transporters Limited's overdraft facility of Kshs. 12 million from Bank of Baroda, sought redemption of the charged property upon payment of Kshs. 12 million in full settlement, plus an order for accounts under order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The High Court (Ochieng, J.) dismissed the application, holding that no court order was needed for redemption: payment of the secured sum with interest from 8th October 2012 would oblige the Bank to discharge the charge. On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Musinga, Kiage and Murgor, JJA) framed three issues. First, it held that dismissal of the redemption motion was not a striking out of pleadings, since an application is not a pleading within section 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and order 2 rule 15 was inapplicable; the substantive suit remained live. Second, accounts could not be ordered because they were not prayed for in the plaint and no preliminary question was demonstrated in the supporting affidavit. Third, on redemption, the court held that section 85 of the Land Act confers a right to redeem upon payment of all moneys secured; clause 2.2(ii) and clause 3.1 of the charge, the operative provisions, made interest payable on the secured Kshs. 12 million, Recital B being merely a statement of the maximum accommodation exclusive of interest and subordinate to the operative clauses. The guarantor was therefore liable for the secured amount plus interest before discharge. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the Bank.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether dismissal of the redemption application amounted to striking out pleadings

Holding

No; the motion was not a pleading and the suit remained intact

Reasoning

Order 2 rule 15 governs striking out of pleadings as defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. What was before the judge was an application for redemption orders, not a pleading. The ruling only dismissed the motion and did not affect the plaint seeking injunction and declarations; invoking order 2 rule 15 was misconceived.

p. 4
02

Entitlement to accounts under order 20 rule 1

Holding

Refused; no prayer in the plaint and no preliminary question demonstrated

Reasoning

Order 20 rule 1 requires that accounts be prayed for in the plaint or that a preliminary question be shown. Accounts were sought only in the motion, and the supporting affidavit contained no averments demonstrating a preliminary question on the accounts justifying the order.

p. 5
03

Redemption under section 85 of the Land Act upon payment of Kshs. 12 million only

Holding

Right of redemption exists but is conditioned on payment of all moneys secured, including interest

Reasoning

Section 85 entitles the chargor to discharge upon payment of all moneys secured. Clause 2.2(ii) and clause 3.1 of the charge, being operative provisions, made interest payable on the secured Kshs. 12 million; Recital B merely stated the maximum accommodation exclusive of interest. Recitals are subordinate to operative provisions. The guarantor was therefore liable for the secured sum plus interest before discharge.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for orders of redemption is not a pleading within the meaning of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, so order 2 rule 15 (striking out) does not apply to it; dismissal of such an application does not strike out the suit.
  • Accounts may be ordered under order 20 rule 1 only where prayed for in the plaint or where a preliminary question to be tried is demonstrated.
  • Under section 85 of the Land Act, a chargor is entitled to discharge of the charge upon payment of all moneys secured, including interest, without needing a court order; recitals in an instrument are subordinate to clear operative provisions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal dismissed with costs to the Bank

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Actsections 82, 84, 85
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 rule 15; Order 20 rules 1, 2, 3 and 4; section 2 (definitions)
  • Land Registration Actsection 56
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 29(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • D.T. Dobie & Company (K) Limited and Joseph Mbaria Muchina
    Civil Appeal No 37 of 1978

    Law on striking out of proceedings; caution in dismissing or striking out suits

  • Mbogo & Anor vs. Shah
    [1968] EA 93

    Principles for interference with exercise of judicial discretion on appeal

  • Noakes Co. Ltd vs Rice
    [1900-3] All ER 34

    Equity will not permit any device or contrivance to prevent or impede redemption

On appeal from
High Court, Commercial & Admiralty Division, Milimani, Nairobi
Civil Suit No. 311 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules (rule 29(1) of this Court's Rules); appeal from ruling and order of the High Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (2)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Javaid Iqbal Khan & another v Iqbal Transporters Limited & another", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/862/eng@2018-01-19

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