Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (part of consolidated suits; related suit ELC 136 of 2019 referenced)· [2020] KEELC 933 (KLR)

Paul Gatete Wangai & 13 others v Capital Realty Ltd & another [2020] KEELC 933 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
23 October 2020
8,930 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~36 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenyan homebuyers who pay a developer without the bank's consent or official search lose their homes if the bank forecloses.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 13 Plaintiffs, purchasers of 13 Maisonettes on L.R. No. 12715/617 (Original No. 12715/11742), Syokimau, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2019 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant (vendor/chargor) and the 2nd Defendant (chargee bank) from disposing of, selling or dealing with the Maisonettes pending trial. They deponed that they had purchased the units between 2013 and 2017, paid Kshs. 147,975,680 in aggregate, taken vacant possession and resided in the units as their matrimonial homes, yet no leases had been registered, and the 2nd Defendant had issued a statutory notice and Notification of Sale threatening auction. The 1st Defendant supported the application, explaining that sales of 66 of 76 townhouses funded loan repayment and blamed the 2nd Defendant's refusal to issue partial discharges. The 2nd Defendant opposed, contending that sales without its consent and without deposit of proceeds into the Escrow Account were invalid and that its statutory power of sale had arisen. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as restated in Nguruman v Jan Bonde Nielsen, Angote J found that Clause 5(g & h) of the Charge, Clause 9.1 of the Further Charge, Section 87 of the Land Act and Section 59 of the Land Registration Act required the Chargee's consent for any sale, and that the Escrow Agreement required all sale proceeds to be deposited in the Escrow Account, which was not done. The Plaintiffs' beneficial interest was thus subordinate to the Chargee's interest, and they had no legal claim against the bank. The statutory notice of 24th June 2019 was held valid. The court followed its own earlier dismissal of the 1st Defendant's injunction in Machakos HCCC No. 6 of 2020 (Odunga J) and the Innercity Properties line of authority. The application was dismissed with costs, the ruling to apply mutatis mutandis to all other pending injunction applications as a test suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction

Holding

The Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success because their sale agreements lacked the Chargee's consent and purchase proceeds were not deposited into the Escrow Account as required.

Reasoning

The court found the Charge and Further Charge prohibited the Chargor from selling without the Chargee's prior written consent, per Clause 5(g & h), Clause 9.1, Section 87 of the Land Act and Section 59 of the Land Registration Act. The Escrow Agreement required all sale proceeds to be deposited into the Escrow Account, which was not done. The Plaintiffs' interest was therefore subordinate to the Chargee's, and no consent was exhibited. This mirrors the holding in Innercity Properties Ltd v Housing Finance and the dismissal of Capital Realty's own injunction application in Machakos HCCC No. 6 of 2020.

p. 11
02

Validity of the statutory notices under Sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act

Holding

The statutory notice dated 24th June 2019 validly specified the amount due (Kshs. 350,361,219.25) and the three-month repayment period, and the 40-day Notification of Sale was validly issued.

Reasoning

Section 90 of the Land Act requires a chargee to issue a notice specifying the nature and extent of default, the amount to be paid and a period not less than three months. The court found the notice issued on 24th June 2019 met these mandatory requirements and was served by registered post, and that the subsequent Notification of Sale dated 7th October 2019 was valid. The chargee was thus entitled to exercise its statutory power of sale after the lapse of the prescribed period, given the chargor's failure to regularise the account.

p. 10
03

Irreparable injury and balance of convenience

Holding

Having failed to establish a prima facie case, the Plaintiffs' application failed; in any event, their loss was compensable in damages.

Reasoning

Applying Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the three Giella conditions must be satisfied sequentially; if prima facie case is not established, the other limbs need no consideration. The court further applied Elijah Kipng'eno Arap Bii v Kenya Commercial Bank: once property is charged, it is a commodity for sale whose loss is adequately compensable in damages, notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' submission that the loss of their matrimonial/family homes was irreparable.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • A chargee's interest in the charged property supersedes a purchaser's beneficial interest where the sale lacked the chargee's consent and purchase monies were not paid as required under the charge and escrow agreement.
  • A purchaser of charged land must conduct an official search and insist on the chargee's consent before committing money; an agreement entered into without consent is unenforceable against the chargee.
  • Once property is offered as security, it becomes a commodity for sale whose loss is compensable in damages.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Application dated 14th November, 2019
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the Defendants (dismissed with costs)
  3. 3.The Ruling to apply mutatis mutandis to all other pending applications for injunctive orders between third parties and the two Defendants in respect of the Maisonettes on L.R. No. 12715/617 (original number 12715/11742)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 90(3), 91(c) and 104(2)(a) and (c) of the Land Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Paul Gatete Wangai & 13 others v Capital Realty Ltd & another [2020] KEELC 933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (part of consolidated suits; related suit ELC 136 of 2019 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/933/eng@2020-10-23

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