Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowed· [2016] KEELC 99 (KLR)

Peter Kimani Nene v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KEELC 99 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 December 2016
2,483 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped a bank from auctioning a borrower's land because the bank could not prove it properly served the required statutory notices.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, registered proprietor of L.R. No. Thika Municipality Block 6/202 in Kiambu County, sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent bank and Leakey's Auctioneers from selling, advertising or alienating the suit property. He denied awareness of the charge and further charge securing overdraft facilities and bank guarantees said to have been advanced for his newspaper distribution business, contended that the statutory and redemption notices were never served, and alleged the sum claimed was exaggerated. The respondent, through its Assistant Legal Manager, maintained that the charge documents were duly executed and registered, that a statutory notice dated 6th September 2012 and auctioneers' notification and redemption notices were issued, and that this was an ordinary case of borrower default. B.N. Olao J applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles. On prima facie case, the court found the charges duly executed but the debt figures inconsistent across the bank's own documents, lending credence to the complaint of exaggeration. On service, the court found no evidence that either the statutory notice or the 45-day redemption notice was served - no certificate of posting and an unsigned redemption notice - constituting non-compliance with Sections 90(1) and 96(2) of the Land Act. On irreparable injury and balance of convenience, guided by Muiruri v Bank of Baroda and Alice Awino Okello v Trust Bank Ltd, the court held that the sale of property worth over Ksh. 20 million for an uncertain debt would be a great injustice. The court granted a temporary injunction pending the hearing of the suit, ordered costs in the cause, and directed that the parties expedite pre-trial compliance so the case is heard within twelve months, failing which the injunction shall lapse.

Key legal issues

#
01

Validity of the charge and exaggerated indebtedness

Holding

The charge, further charge and second further charge were duly executed and registered; signatures were not disputed, but there is a real doubt as to the exact amount owed, lending credence to the applicant's complaint of exaggeration.

Reasoning

The respondent annexed executed letters of offer and registered charges, and the applicant did not dispute the signatures. However, the statutory notice showed Ksh. 8,756,839.95 due as at 4 September 2012, while the applicant's own statement showed a debit balance of Ksh. 4,085,361.70 as at 31 May 2013 after payments totalling over Ksh. 2.7 million. The bank's own documents showed inconsistent figures, establishing a prima facie case that the sum demanded was excessive.

p. 3
02

Service of statutory notice under Section 90 and redemption notice under Section 96(2) of the Land Act

Holding

There was no evidence that either the statutory notice dated 6th September 2012 or the 45-day redemption notice dated 17th April 2013 was served on the applicant; there was no certificate of posting and the redemption notice was unsigned.

Reasoning

The court defined 'serve' and 'service' per Black's Law Dictionary and examined the documents. The statutory notice lacked any certificate of posting by registered post, and the redemption notice bore no signature of the applicant on the date of alleged service, with no affidavit from the auctioneers indicating who was served. The blank endorsement confirmed non-service, breaching Sections 90(1) and 96(2) of the Land Act and justifying the injunction.

p. 4
03

Irreparable injury and balance of convenience

Holding

Land disputes evoke emotion and damages are inadequate except in clear cases; sale of property worth over Ksh. 20 million for an uncertain debt would be a great injustice, and the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant.

Reasoning

Relying on Muiruri v Bank of Baroda and Alice Awino Okello v Trust Bank Ltd, the court held that land disputes are not adequately compensable in damages except in very clear cases. Since the exact debt was unclear, the court could not order payment into court instead; preserving the property while the respondent confirms what is due carries the lower risk of injustice.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A mortgagee will not be restrained from exercising its power of sale merely because the amount due is in dispute, but will be restrained where the amount claimed is excessive or uncertain.
  • Where there is doubt as to the amount due under a charge, the doubt must be resolved in favour of the borrower.
  • Service of statutory and redemption notices must be proved; absence of a certificate of posting or evidence of service constitutes non-compliance with Sections 90(1) and 96(2) of the Land Act and entitles the chargor to an interlocutory injunction.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, a temporary injunction restraining the respondent, its agents and/or servants from selling, transferring or otherwise alienating, advertising for sale or putting up for sale the property L.R No. THIKA MUNICIPALITY BLOCK 6/202 KIAMBU COUNTY
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
  3. 3.Parties to expedite compliance with pre-trial directions so the case is heard and determined within twelve (12) months, failing which the injunction shall lapse

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSections 90(1), (2) and 3(e)
  • Land ActSections 96(1) and (2)
  • Registered Land ActSection 74

Cases cited (5)

  • GIELLA VS CASSMAN BROWN
    1973 E.A 358
  • FILMS ROVER INTERNATIONAL LTD VS CANNON FILM SALE LTD
    1986 3 ALL E.R 772
  • MRAO VS FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA & TWO OTHERS
    2003 K.L.R 123
  • MUIRURI VS BANK OF BARODA (KENYA) LTD
    2001 K.L.R 183 (also cited as 2000 K.L.R 183)
  • ALICE AWINO OKELLO VS TRUST BANK LTD & ANOTHER
    LLR No. 625 (CCK)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction over an interlocutory application in a pending suit concerning charged land under the Land Act, 2012 (particular provision not stated in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Kimani Nene v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KEELC 99 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/99/eng@2016-12-09

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