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 29th August, 2019 in the main suit (Plaint dated 20th April, 2009)· [2020] KEELC 2725 (KLR)

Nancy Nyawira & another v Archer Dramond Morgan Ltd; Chief Land Registrar & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2725 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
8 May 2020
2,548 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

#

If you buy or lend against land while a court case over it is pending in Kenya, your purchase and any mortgage on it can be voided entirely.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 29th August, 2019 in which the 2nd Interested Party, a chargee of the suit property, sought joinder as an interested party, a stay of execution of the orders of 5th July, 2019, setting aside of the proceedings and the ruling of Hon. O.A. Angote of 5th July, 2019, an interim injunction restraining dealings with the property known as Unit No. 8 Phase 1 on L.R. 27317 Hillcrest Park, and the re-opening of the proceedings. The underlying suit, commenced by Plaint dated 20th April, 2009, was referred by consent to arbitration; the arbitrator's award directed the Defendant vendor to complete the sale and deliver possession, and the award was adopted as a decree of the court on 15th February, 2012. The 2nd Interested Party, whose company secretary learned of the suit in August 2019 when eviction was threatened against its staff member Crispin Eustace Musundi, argued it was a stranger to the arbitration and that setting aside the judgment was necessary to avoid condemning it unheard. The Plaintiffs opposed, invoking lis pendens, since the property was transferred and charged while the suit was pending and after the award, and contending the court was functus officio. The court held the sale and the subsequent charge were null and void under the doctrine of lis pendens, that the 2nd Interested Party would have nothing to say even if proceedings were re-opened, and that the purchaser and chargee's only recourse was to sue the Defendant for damages. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of the doctrine of lis pendens on the sale and subsequent charge of the suit property

Holding

The sale to Crispin Musundi and the charge to the 2nd Interested Party were null and void because the sale occurred during the pendency of the suit and after the arbitral award

Reasoning

The court traced the doctrine from Bellamy v Sabine through Mawji and Carol Silcock, holding that litigation must be allowed to end and that purchasers pendente lite are bound by the judgment as though they had notice. The Defendant sold the property after the Arbitrator had ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs; such conduct was unlawful and intended to defeat the course of justice, so neither the purchaser nor the chargee can derive any title from it.

p. 3
02

Whether the 2nd Interested Party could set aside the proceedings and the adopted award as a stranger condemned unheard

Holding

No; the chargee cannot set aside the proceedings or the award because its interest derives from a void transfer, and its only recourse is against the Defendant for damages

Reasoning

Although the 2nd Interested Party argued it would be condemned unheard contrary to natural justice, the court held that the ownership dispute was conclusively settled by the arbitrator and adopted by the court. The 2nd Interested Party would have nothing to add even if proceedings were re-opened. The purchaser and chargee hold mere papers conferring no proprietorship interest and may only sue the Defendant for damages.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A transfer of suit property during the pendency of litigation, and after an arbitral award, is null and void, as is any subsequent charge by the alienee
  • In the absence of an injunction, a party may dispose of property but the final judgment binds the third party as though the sale never took place

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application dated 29th August, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Arbitration Actprovisions on appeals from arbitral awards
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882doctrine of lis pendens (as discussed in Mulla, 5th Edition)

Cases cited (4)

  • Carol Silcock vs. Kassim Shariff Mohamed
    [2013] eKLR
  • Mawji vs. United States International University and Another
    [1976-80] KLR
  • Bellamy vs. Sabine
    [1857] I D J 566, 584
  • Abdalla Omar Nabhan vs. Executor of the Estate of Saad Bin Aboud & 2 Others
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a suit referred to arbitration and the arbitral award adopted as a decree of the court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nancy Nyawira & another v Archer Dramond Morgan Ltd; Chief Land Registrar & another (Interested Parties) [2020] KEELC 2725 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 29th August, 2019 in the main suit (Plaint dated 20th April, 2009). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2725/eng@2020-05-08

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