Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 9th March 2017 (ELC suit, Eldoret)· [2017] KEELC 1184 (KLR)

Wycliffe Mutali Okwaro v Kenya Women Micro Finance Bank Ltd & another [2017] KEELC 1184 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2017
2,752 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Eldoret court allowed KCB to proceed toward selling land charged as loan security, ruling matrimonial property gets no special protection once offered as collateral.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling disposes of a Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2017 in which the plaintiff, registered owner of Eldoret Municipality Block 21 (King'ong'o)/3854, sought a temporary injunction restraining the 1st defendant bank from exercising its statutory power of sale over the property, and an order compelling the bank to furnish the 2nd defendant's loan statements. The plaintiff had guaranteed a Kshs 1.4 million facility advanced to the 2nd defendant, who defaulted. The bank issued a section 90 notice dated 1st November 2016 and a section 96(3) notice dated 2nd February 2017, both served by registered post. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found it was not in dispute that the guarantee existed and default had occurred, and that the bank had complied with the Land Act by issuing and serving proper statutory notices addressed to both the guarantor and the defaulter. The court declined to compel provision of loan statements, holding that this was not a ground for an injunction and the prayer was spent since the bank had annexed the statements. On the plaintiff's claim that the property was matrimonial property, the court held that once offered as security it is treated like any other security. The plaintiff was also found not to have come to equity with clean hands, being economical with the truth about his relationship with and assistance to the 2nd defendant. Applying the Gichanga/Aikman reasoning, the court held it unnecessary to consider the remaining Giella limbs once no prima facie case was established. The application was dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant, and parties were directed to comply with Order 11 within 30 days and set the suit down for hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a prima facie case was established

Holding

No prima facie case was established; default was admitted, notices were properly issued and served

Reasoning

The court held it was not in dispute that the applicant guaranteed the 2nd defendant's Kshs 1.4M loan and that she defaulted. The chargee issued and served statutory notices under sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act addressing both the guarantor and defaulter. Having complied with the law, the chargee's right to realize the security could not be restrained, and the applicant, being in default himself, had not shown a probability of success.

p. 4
02

Whether matrimonial character of the charged property blocks realization

Holding

No; once offered as security it is treated like any other security

Reasoning

Relying on the Maltex Commercial Supplies case, the court held that property offered as security, whether matrimonial or otherwise, stands the risk of sale on default. The sentiment of ownership has given way to commercial considerations, and the applicant cannot invoke the empathy of the court based on the matrimonial character of the property. The argument was characterized as dead on arrival.

p. 4
03

Whether the applicant came to equity with clean hands

Holding

The applicant was not candid; a defaulting guarantor will not be granted the equitable remedy of injunction

Reasoning

The court questioned the relationship between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and why he would sue her over refusal to repay, noting he claimed to have been assisting in repayment yet did not know the state of the account. Relying on the Daniel Kamau Mugambi and Ichatha authorities, the court held that a plaintiff who seeks protection from the consequences of his own default does not come with clean hands and cannot be granted an injunction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Matrimonial property offered as security is treated like any other security on default and does not acquire special protection from realization
  • If the applicant fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not consider the remaining Giella conditions
  • Legal authorities should be cited in submissions or oral argument, not in affidavits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's application dated 9th March 2017 is dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant
  2. 2.Parties to comply with Order 11 within 30 days and set down the suit for hearing

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Actsection 90 (3)(e) / section 90
  • Land Actsection 96 (3)
  • Land Act No. 6 of 2012general
  • Civil Procedure Rules (Order 11)Order 11

Cases cited (12)

  • Giella vs Cassman and Co. Ltd
    [1973] EA 358
  • Kyangaro v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Another
    (2004) 1 KLR 126
  • Hilda Kagure vs Moses Leshao
    HCCC ELC (2012) e KLR
  • John Edward Ouko v National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd
    (2013) e KLR
  • Kenya Breweries Ltd vs Okeyo
    (2002) EA
  • Ecobank Kenya Limited & Anor vs Grace Wanjiru Gitonga
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2013
  • Maithya V. Housing Finance Co. of Kenya and Another
  • Maltex Commercial Supplies Limited & Another vs Euro Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
    HCCC Number 82 of 2006
  • Daniel Kamau Mugambi v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd
    [2006] e KLR
  • Francis J. K. Ichatha v Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Limited
  • J. M. Gichanga vs. Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd.
    (2005) eKLR
  • Aikman vs. Muchoki
    (1984) KLR 353
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to grant interlocutory relief under the Giella principles; charge registered over land parcel Eldoret Municipality Block 21 (King'ong'o)/3854

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

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, "Wycliffe Mutali Okwaro v Kenya Women Micro Finance Bank Ltd & another [2017] KEELC 1184 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2017 (ELC suit, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1184/eng@2017-10-30

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