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 30th April, 2018 (suit arising from injunction application dated 8th January, 2013)· [2019] KEELC 4927 (KLR)

Khalid Yamin Khan & Abdul Waheed Khan t/a Highland Distributors Ventures v Equity Bank Limited & another [2019] KEELC 4927 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (not expressly stated in the extract)
24 January 2019
2,571 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

#

The High Court dismissed borrowers' last-minute bid to stop KCB auctioning their Kileleshwa property, ruling one statutory notice covers future defaults.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 30th April, 2018 seeking three principal reliefs: a stay of the intended public auction of House Number 3 on LR Number 209/9771, Kileleshwa, scheduled for 30th May, 2018; review and setting aside of the ruling of 12th April, 2018 dismissing their earlier injunction application, and in its place a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or interfering with the suit property; and leave to amend their pleadings. They argued they had discovered new evidence - chiefly that the 1st defendant's demand of Kshs.33,273,331.30 offended section 44A(1)-(3) of the Banking Act limiting recovery on non-performing loans - and that no statutory notice under section 96(2) of the Land Act, 2012 had been served. The defendants opposed, contending the application was an attempt to make the court sit on appeal against its own ruling, that the alleged new matters were within the plaintiffs' knowledge earlier, that statutory notices were served and admitted, and that no draft amended plaint was annexed. The court dismissed the application. It held that the stay/conservatory order prayer was misconceived since the dispute was purely civil with no claim of constitutional violation; that no new and important matter justified review, the IRAC report of 2015 having discussed section 44A extensively; that service of statutory notices had been admitted; and that no proper basis for amendment was laid. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Availability of conservatory orders in civil proceedings

Holding

The stay/conservatory order prayer was misconceived because the suit is a purely civil dispute with no claim of constitutional violation

Reasoning

The plaintiffs relied on constitutional petition authorities (Wambora; Munya) but neither their plaint nor application alleged violation or threatened violation of constitutional rights. Conservatory orders are governed by the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 and are inapplicable in civil proceedings, which have their own elaborate interlocutory relief procedures. Hence no basis in law existed for the stay sought.

p. 2
02

Whether review was warranted on discovery of new and important matter under Section 80 Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1

Holding

No new matter or evidence was established; the alleged discoveries were within the plaintiffs' knowledge when the 12th April 2018 order was made

Reasoning

The plaintiffs claimed the provisions of section 44A of the Banking Act on non-performing loans and their account status were new matters. However, the IRAC report of 11th August 2015 (annexure AWK-6) discussed section 44A extensively, showing the plaintiffs knew of it before the ruling. The interest rate issue was the main argument in the earlier injunction application, so it could not be re-opened as new evidence.

p. 3
03

Alleged non-service of statutory notice under section 96(2) of the Land Act, 2012

Holding

Not a ground for review because the plaintiffs admitted service of the notice to redeem in a 2012 letter and in paragraph 13 of the plaint

Reasoning

The plaintiffs' own letter dated 20th December 2012 (annexure AWK7) admitted service of a notice to redeem, and paragraph 13 of the plaint admitted service of a statutory notice. The court agreed with the defendants that a mortgagee need not serve fresh statutory and redemption notices upon each default and before each auction. Therefore the alleged non-service could not justify review of the earlier order.

p. 3
04

Leave to amend the plaint

Holding

Refused because no draft amended plaint or particulars of intended amendments were placed before the court

Reasoning

The plaintiffs failed to inform the court and the defendants of what the proposed amendments entailed, leaving no material on which the court could exercise its discretion. The defendants had also pointed out the absence of a draft amended plaint in submissions. The prayer therefore failed for lack of a proper foundation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Conservatory orders belong to constitutional petitions and have no application in ordinary civil proceedings, which have their own interlocutory relief procedures
  • A party cannot re-open a dismissed application on new grounds in the pretext of discovering new evidence
  • A mortgagee is not obliged to serve fresh statutory and redemption notices each time the mortgagor defaults after notices were once served

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiffs' application dated 30th April, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Banking Act, Chapter 488 Laws of Kenyasection 44A(1) to (3)
  • Banking (Amendment) Act, 2006section 44A
  • Land Act, 2012section 96(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1
  • The Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013not specified

Cases cited (2)

  • Martin Nyaga Wambora v Speaker of the County Assembly of Embu & 3 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Githinji & 2 Others
    Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent civil jurisdiction; review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khalid Yamin Khan & Abdul Waheed Khan t/a Highland Distributors Ventures v Equity Bank Limited & another [2019] KEELC 4927 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 30th April, 2018 (suit arising from injunction application dated 8th January, 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4927/eng@2019-01-24

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