Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKisii ELC (Notice of Motion dated 16th September 2016; defendant's Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2016)· [2017] KEELC 3000 (KLR)

Esther Kemuma Mogaka & another v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited [2017] KEELC 3000 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 March 2017
5,000 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~20 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a bank to proceed with selling mortgaged land, ruling that disputing the loan amount does not stop a proper statutory sale.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court was called upon to determine two interlocutory applications in a pending suit: the plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 16th September 2016 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant bank from exercising its statutory power of sale over LR No. Kisii Municipality/Block III/334, and the defendant's notice of motion dated 15th October 2016 seeking to set aside the ex parte interim injunction granted on 5th October 2016. The judge elected to determine the plaintiffs' application, which would dispose of the defendant's application. The suit property had been charged as security for banking facilities extended to the 2nd plaintiff in the aggregate sum of Kshs. 115,000,000/=, and a debit balance of Kshs. 123,303,528.52 was demanded on 17th February 2016. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles as refined in Nguruman Limited, the court found the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case: the demand letter, statutory notice under Section 90 and notification of sale under Section 96(2) of the Land Act, 2012 were all properly posted to the address in the charge, which contained a deemed-service clause, and the power of sale had accrued. The court distinguished Musa Angira Angira v ICDC, held that a dispute over quantum does not restrain a chargee, and found that failure to obtain a revaluation under Section 97 would not restrain the sale, remedies lying under that section post-sale. Damages were held an adequate remedy, and the plaintiffs, having defaulted and alleged fraud without particulars, did not come with clean hands. The plaintiffs' application was dismissed with costs and the interim injunction discharged.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff's application met the Giella test for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

The application failed at the first hurdle - no prima facie case with probability of success - since the statutory notices under Sections 90 and 96(2) of the Land Act were properly served and the power of sale had accrued

Reasoning

The court examined the demand letter of 17th February 2016, the statutory notice of 23rd February 2016 and the notification of sale of 25th May 2016, all posted to the address in the charge instrument with a deemed-service clause of five days from posting. It was persuaded service was effected, so the defendant's power of sale accrued. A dispute over quantum is no bar to the power of sale, and no particulars of fraud were furnished.

p. 5
02

Whether failure to obtain a fresh valuation under Section 97(2)/(3) of the Land Act, 2012 can restrain the sale

Holding

Non-compliance with Section 97 would not be a ground to restrain an accrued power of sale; the chargor's remedy lies under Section 97 if the property is sold at an undervalue

Reasoning

The court held that non-compliance with Section 97(3) would not be a ground to restrain an accrued power of sale; the plaintiffs would have remedies under Section 97 if the property sold at an undervalue. In any event, the defendant showed a valuation was obtained on 13th August 2016, so there was compliance even if the sale had proceeded.

p. 7
03

Whether damages would be an adequate remedy

Holding

Yes - by charging the property the plaintiffs made it a commodity capable of sale, and any loss is calculable on the market value

Reasoning

Relying on Andrew Muriuki Wanjohi -vs- Equity Building Society, the court reasoned that a chargor who voluntarily offers property as security cannot complain that its loss on sale is incapable of compensation in damages, since the property was evaluated in monetary terms and constituted a commodity the chargee may dispose of to recover the loan and interest.

p. 7
04

Whether the plaintiffs came to equity with clean hands

Holding

They did not; they did not repay the facility and gave no particulars of the alleged fraudulent mismanagement of the account

Reasoning

The plaintiffs admitted the debt but disputed quantum, alleging fraud and unlawful mismanagement by the defendant without furnishing any particulars of the alleged fraudulent acts. Having defaulted on the facility and sought to escape the consequences of their own default, they failed the equity requirement of clean hands and were not entitled to the discretionary remedy of an injunction.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • The chargee will not be restrained from exercising its power of sale merely because the amount due is in dispute
  • Once the power of sale has accrued and notices have been duly served, courts ought not to interfere with its proper exercise
  • Where property is charged as security, damages are an adequate remedy for the chargor and an injunction will not lie
  • A certificate of indebtedness by an officer of the chargee is binding absent manifest error
  • A party seeking an injunction must come to equity with clean hands

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 16th September 2016 is dismissed with costs to the defendant
  2. 2.The interim order of injunction granted on 5th October 2016 is discharged and vacated
  3. 3.The determination disposes of the defendant's application dated 15th October 2016

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSection 90(3)
  • Land ActSection 96(2)
  • Land ActSection 97(2) and 97(3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 12 Rule 7; Order 40 Rule 4(2) and 7

Cases cited (10)

  • Giella –vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] E.A 358
  • Nguruman Limited –vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Finance co. Ltd –vs- Afraha Education Society
    (2001) Vol. 1 EA 86
  • Musa Angira Angira –vs- Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation
    Kisii HC ELC No. 217 of 2014 (unreported)
  • Mrao Limited –vs- First American Bank (K) Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • Jane Wanja Miriti –vs- Fina Bank Ltd & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • John P. O Mutere & Another –vs- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    HCCC No. 3125 of 1995
  • Daniel Kamau Mugambi –vs- Housing Finance of Kenya Ltd
    [2006] eKLR
  • Francis J. K. Ichatha –vs- Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Ltd
    Court of Appeal C.A No. 108 of 2005 (unreported)
  • Andrew Muriuki Wanjohi –vs- Equity Building Society Ltd
    [2006] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; court seized of a notice of motion for interlocutory injunction in a pending suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Esther Kemuma Mogaka & another v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited [2017] KEELC 3000 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Kisii ELC (Notice of Motion dated 16th September 2016; defendant's Notice of Motion dated 15th October 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3000/eng@2017-03-31

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