Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherOriginating Summons dated 2nd March 2016· [2016] KEELC 951 (KLR)

Savannah Academy Limited v Charterhouse Bank Limited (Under Statutory Management) & another [2016] KEELC 951 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
5 April 2016
1,628 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court cannot force a lender to accept a lawyer's undertaking to release a land charge; it can, however, order release if a bank guarantee or full payment is provided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff charged L.R No. 13767/49/3 to the Defendant in 2002 to secure credit facilities and owed Kshs.12,274,748.96 as at 12th February 2016. To settle this debt, the Plaintiff agreed on 30th October 2015 to sell the property to an interested party for Kshs.51,000,000/-, with the purchase financed by Family Bank Limited. Family Bank's advocates gave a professional undertaking dated 10th February 2016 to pay the debt upon registration of the transfer and a new charge in favour of Family Bank, and requested release of the original title and discharge of charge. Because the Defendant was in receivership and unable to execute the discharge, the Plaintiff brought an Originating Summons under Order 37 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking an order that the Deputy Registrar sign the discharge on the Defendant's behalf on the strength of the undertaking. The Defendant's statutory manager admitted the debt but insisted on payment before release. The court held that while release of securities on professional undertakings is normal banking practice, it could not compel the Defendant to accept an undertaking it found unacceptable; the Defendant's right to hold its security until paid had to be balanced against the Plaintiff's right to redeem. The court declined to grant the Deputy Registrar order sought, instead directing that the discharge be executed within fourteen days of Family Bank providing an irrevocable bank guarantee or insurance bond approved by the Defendant's advocates, or alternatively upon unconditional payment, with Family Bank under no obligation to provide either, each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could order execution of a discharge of charge by the Deputy Registrar based solely on a professional undertaking from the purchaser's financier's advocates

Holding

The court declined to order execution on the strength of the undertaking alone, holding that the chargee could not be compelled to accept an undertaking it found unacceptable

Reasoning

The court acknowledged that it is normal banking practice for financial institutions to release title documents and discharges on professional undertakings, but held that it cannot dictate to a chargee what undertaking it should accept. Forcing the Defendant to accept the Family Bank advocates' undertaking would not be proper. Instead, the court balanced the Defendant's right to its security with the Plaintiff's right of redemption by crafting conditional orders requiring an irrevocable bank guarantee or insurance bond, or outright payment, as the basis for executing the discharge.

p. 3
02

Balancing the chargee's right to its security against the chargor's equity of redemption

Holding

Both rights must be balanced; the court fashioned conditional orders doing the best it could for the Plaintiff while securing the Defendant's debt

Reasoning

The court found the Defendant's demand for cash in exchange for the title and discharge not unreasonable, since it has a right to hold its security until paid in full. However, that right had to be weighed against the Plaintiff's right to redeem the property through the sale. The court resolved the tension by permitting execution of the discharge upon provision of an irrevocable bank guarantee or insurance bond approved by the Defendant's advocates, or upon unconditional payment, while expressly freeing Family Bank from any obligation to provide the security.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A chargee has the right to hold onto its security until the debt owed is paid in full, and the court cannot dictate what form of undertaking or security the chargee must accept, though its decision must accord with common banking practice and must not stifle the chargor's right of redemption

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Manager, Jimmy Muiwa, or any person authorized under the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act, 2012 or Central Bank of Kenya Act, Cap 491, shall execute a discharge of charge over L.R. No. 1376/49/3 within fourteen days of Family Bank Limited providing, in addition to its advocates' undertaking dated 10th February 2016, an irrevocable bank guarantee or irrevocable insurance bond approved by the Defendant's advocates that it will pay Kshs.12,274,748.96 within fourteen days and in any event within forty-five days of simultaneous registration of the transfer to the interested party and a charge in favour of Family Bank Limited
  2. 2.In the alternative, the discharge of charge may be executed as above within 14 days of unconditional payment of Kshs.12,274,748.96 by the Plaintiff, the interested party or Family Bank Limited
  3. 3.Family Bank Limited is not under any obligation to provide the security set out in paragraph 1 or to make the payment in paragraph 2
  4. 4.The parties are at liberty to agree on any other mode of securing the debt pending completion of the sale
  5. 5.Each party shall bear its costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 rule 4
  • Kenya Deposit Insurance Act2012
  • Central Bank of Kenya ActCap 491 Laws of Kenya
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 37 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (originating summons for relief relating to a charge/mortgage)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Savannah Academy Limited v Charterhouse Bank Limited (Under Statutory Management) & another [2016] KEELC 951 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Originating Summons dated 2nd March 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/951/eng@2016-04-05

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