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 October 2020 (Nakuru ELC)· [2021] KEELC 4591 (KLR)

Jane Njeri James v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELC 4591 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 January 2021
2,392 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

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop a bank from completing a property sale because the borrower admitted the debt and default in her own documents.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a borrower charged Nakuru Municipality Block 20/111 to the 1st Defendant (the bank) to secure a KShs 21,300,000 mortgage facility taken in 2014, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2020 seeking an order of inhibition and temporary injunctions restraining the bank from receiving the purchase price from the 2nd Defendant, transferring or registering dealings, or otherwise dealing with the suit property following its sale by public auction on 26th October 2020. She complained of failure to serve statutory notices, an expired valuation report, breach of the auction conditions of sale regarding the 25% deposit, and sale below market value. The bank countered that she defaulted from 2015, never repaid anything, was duly served with statutory notices (which her own email of 30th September 2020 acknowledged), and that a forced sale valuation was obtained. Applying the Giella principles as restated in Nguruman, the court found she failed to establish a prima facie case: the debt and default were undisputed and service of notices was admitted by her own affidavit. Her conduct also disentitled her to equitable relief. The court further held damages were adequate, complaints about the sale lying under Section 99(4) of the Land Act, and did not reach the balance of convenience. The motion was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant on 28th January 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction

Holding

No prima facie case: the applicant admitted default and acknowledged receipt of statutory notices in her own affidavit.

Reasoning

The court found the mortgage facility and default undisputed; the applicant never challenged the assertion that she had not repaid anything. Her own email of 30th September 2020 acknowledged receipt of the notices and that she signed for the auctioneer's notices, defeating the claim of improper service. Relying on Mrao and Nguruman, the court held she fell short of the standard.

p. 3
02

Adequacy of damages

Holding

Damages are an adequate remedy since the property's value is easily ascertainable and complaints lie under Section 99(4) of the Land Act.

Reasoning

The property was charged to secure a facility of KShs 21,300,000, making it a commodity for sale with ascertainable value whose loss is compensable. The applicant herself valued it at KShs 35,000,000 without a valuation report, and the 1st defendant produced a valuation report. Complaints about the manner of exercise of the power of sale fall under Section 99(4) of the Land Act.

p. 3
03

Conduct of the applicant in seeking equitable relief

Holding

The applicant's conduct failed the requirements of equity; she took the loan and did not repay on the pretext of pending litigation.

Reasoning

The court adopted Kwach JA's observations in Mrao regarding a litigant who borrows on the strength of securities, repays nothing, then rushes to equity claiming the securities are invalid. The ELC No. 163 of 2014 litigation did not excuse the applicant from honouring her contractual obligations under the charge.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The three Giella conditions are separate, distinct and sequential hurdles that an applicant must surmount; failure at the first disposes of the application.
  • Where the charged property secures an ascertainable debt, damages are an adequate remedy and complaints about improper exercise of the power of sale sound in damages under Section 99(4) of the Land Act.
  • An applicant for equitable relief must demonstrate equitable conduct.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2020
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the 1st Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSection 90
  • Land ActSection 96(2)
  • Land ActSection 99(4)
  • Auctioneers RulesRule 15(e)

Cases cited (4)

  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    [2003] eKLR
  • Maina Wanjigi & Another -vs- Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Cieni Plains Co. Ltd -vs- Ecobank
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to grant interlocutory injunctions and orders of inhibition

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jane Njeri James v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELC 4591 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2020 (Nakuru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4591/eng@2021-01-28

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