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 22nd August 2017 (suit over LR No. 3777/749 (IR No. 60706))· [2018] KEELC 2238 (KLR)

Francis Muthoga Muhika v Paul Njuguna Kahia & another [2018] KEELC 2238 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 July 2018
1,751 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 refused to stop a land auction because the buyer had no registered interest and wasn't party to the loan agreement.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Ohungo J, 20 July 2018) determined the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 22nd August 2017 seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, alienating or dealing with LR No. 3777/749 (IR No. 60706) pending the hearing of the suit. The plaintiff claimed he had purchased 5 acres of the suit property from the 1st defendant under an agreement of 12th April 2003, paying through school fees and direct payments, built and registered a school on the land, but never received a title. He was alerted by a newspaper advertisement that the 2nd defendant, a chargee under a charge created by the 1st defendant to secure a loan to Gideon Mwangi Macharia, intended to auction the property on 24th August 2017. The 1st defendant supported the application, but the 2nd defendant opposed it, citing the borrower's default of Kshs.1,767,204.10, issuance of statutory notices, and absence of privity of contract with the plaintiff. The court characterised the application as one to restrain a chargee's statutory power of sale and applied the Giella test as elaborated in Nguruman. It found the plaintiff a stranger to the charge, not among the persons entitled to relief under section 103(1) of the Land Act, 2012; found his evidence of purchase and construction scanty and his interest unregistered against a validly registered charge; and held that no prima facie case was established, making consideration of the other Giella limbs unnecessary. The application was dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

No prima facie case was established; the plaintiff is a third party to the charge and his claimed purchase was poorly evidenced and unregistered

Reasoning

The court applied Giella as framed in Nguruman. The plaintiff admitted he was not party to the charge transaction. Under section 103(1) of the Land Act, 2012, only specified persons may seek relief against a chargee's remedies, and the plaintiff is not among them. Evidence of the sale - payment of school fees and construction of a school - was scanty, with no proof of payment, construction dates, or registration of the plaintiff's interest on the title, while the 2nd defendant held a validly registered charge.

p. 3
02

Doctrine of privity of contract in the context of a registered charge

Holding

A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on a non-party; the plaintiff could not enforce or resist the charge transaction

Reasoning

Relying on Savings & Loan (K) Limited v Kanyenje Karangaita Gakombe and Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd, the court held that only a party to a contract can sue on it. The plaintiff neither knew the borrower nor was party to the charge, so he could not invoke the contract's consequences or halt them.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella conditions are separate, distinct and logical hurdles to be surmounted sequentially; if no prima facie case is established, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration
  • A stranger to a charge, not listed under section 103(1) of the Land Act, 2012, cannot seek relief against the chargee's exercise of its statutory remedies

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 22nd August 2017 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Act, 2012section 103(1)
  • Land Act, 2012section 90(3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Giella -vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] E.A 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Savings & Loan (K) Limited v Kanyenje Karangaita Gakombe & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V SELFRIDGE & CO LTD
    [1915] AC 847
  • AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION V LENGETIA LTD
  • KENYA NATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION LTD V ALBERT MARIO CORDEIRO & ANOTHER
  • WILLIAM MUTHEE MUTHAMI V BANK OF BARODA
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land matters; interlocutory application under the court's inherent powers and the Land Act, 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Francis Muthoga Muhika v Paul Njuguna Kahia & another [2018] KEELC 2238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 22nd August 2017 (suit over LR No. 3777/749 (IR No. 60706)). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2238/eng@2018-07-20

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