Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedOriginating Summons dated 9th February 2022 (number not stated in judgment)· [2023] KEELC 59 (KLR)

Webtribe Limited t/a Jambopay v Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E005 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 59 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 January 2023
6,852 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~27 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a borrower's attempt to block Equity Bank from selling charged land, because the bank followed the required statutory notices and the borrower admitted owing the debt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff company obtained limited ex-parte injunction orders on 21st February 2022 and filed an originating summons dated 9th February 2022 seeking a permanent injunction restraining Equity Bank Limited and Purple Royal Auctioneers from selling, alienating or interfering with the suit property, which was charged to the bank in 2016 to secure a loan facility, pending the hearing and determination of the application and suit. The matter was disposed of by affidavit evidence and written submissions. The Plaintiff argued that the bank failed to issue the statutory notices required by Sections 90(2) and 96(2) of the Land Act, 2012, rendering the intended exercise of the statutory power of sale unlawful. The 1st Defendant countered that a permanent injunction tied to the pendency of the suit was legally untenable, that it had served a demand notice (13th December 2018), a statutory notice under Section 90(2) (7th November 2019) and a 40 days' notice (5th March 2020), all with certificates of postage, and that the Plaintiff admittedly owed Kshs 139,156,723.47 with substantial arrears. The court framed three issues and held: first, that a permanent injunction expressed to last only pending determination of the suit would be an order in futility, since a permanent injunction takes effect upon judgment and outlives it, and the Plaintiff, bound by its pleadings and Order 2 Rule 6, could not recast the relief through submissions. Second, having filed no further or supplementary affidavit to rebut the bank's elaborate averments, the Plaintiff was deemed to admit service of the notices; its subsequent approach to the bank for indulgence confirmed receipt, making the exercise of the statutory power of sale lawful. Third, equity could not assist a party admittedly in breach of a binding contract, as such relief would occasion grave injustice and amount to re-writing the charge instrument. The suit was dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant, and the temporary injunction of 21st February 2022 was discharged and vacated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a permanent injunction 'pending the hearing and determination of the suit' is legally tenable

Holding

Not tenable - such an order would expire upon judgment, making it an order in futility, and the Plaintiff could not recast the relief via submissions

Reasoning

The court observed that the only substantive prayer was expressly limited to the pendency of the suit, so it would stand extinguished upon delivery of judgment. A permanent injunction is a decree that determines rights post-judgment and outlives the suit. Courts do not act in vanity or futility. The Plaintiff, bound by its pleadings and by Order 2 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, could not vary the relief through written submissions without leave to amend.

p. 6
02

Whether the 1st Defendant complied with Sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act, 2012 before exercising the statutory power of sale

Holding

Complied - demand notice (13/12/2018), statutory notice under s.90(2) (7/11/2019) and 40 days' notice under s.96(2) (5/3/2020) were served with certificates of postage; the exercise of the statutory power of sale was lawful

Reasoning

The 1st Defendant exhibited the notices and certificates of postage showing dispatch to the Plaintiff's last known postal address, which matched the address the Plaintiff itself relied on and never disputed. The Plaintiff filed no further or supplementary affidavit to rebut these averments and was therefore deemed to have admitted them. Its subsequent approach to the bank for indulgence further confirmed receipt of the notices. The intended exercise of the statutory power of sale was accordingly lawful.

p. 10
03

Whether equity should intervene where the Plaintiff admits an outstanding debt

Holding

No - granting relief to an admittedly defaulting borrower would occasion grave injustice and amount to re-writing the charge

Reasoning

On the Plaintiff's own averments, the loan arrears remained due and owing; the 1st Defendant deposed that the outstanding amount was Kshs 139,156,723.47 with arrears of Kshs 40,309,094. The court held that intervention in favour of a party admittedly in breach of a binding contract would occasion grave injustice, contravene Article 10(2) values, and amount impermissibly to re-writing the terms of the charge instrument.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • A party is taken to have admitted the positive averments in an adversary's affidavit where it fails to file a further or supplementary affidavit in response
  • An order of permanent injunction is a decree that takes effect upon judgment and cannot be tied to the pendency of a suit; courts do not grant orders that would be rendered otiose
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot depart from them or raise fresh claims through submissions without amendment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's suit vide originating summons dated the 9th February 2022 be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant
  2. 2.The Temporary orders of Injunction issued on the 21st February 2022 be and are hereby discharged and vacated

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSection 90(1), 90(2)
  • Land ActSection 96(2)
  • Land ActSection 84(3)
  • Auctioneers RulesRule 15
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 2 Rule 6

Cases cited (18)

  • Albert Mario Cordeiro & another v Vishram Shamji
    (2015) eKLR
  • Alice Owino Okello v Trust Bank Ltd & another
    LLR No 625 (CCK)
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    (2003) eKLR
  • Joseph Kiarie Mbugua v Garam Ltd & Another
    (2006) eKLR
  • Euro Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Twicter Investment Ltd & 2 Others
    (2020) eKLR
  • Bandari Investments & Company Ltd v Martin Chiponda & 139 Others
    (2022) eKLR
  • Kenya Power & Lighting Ltd v Sheriff Molana Habib
    (2018) eKLR
  • Kenleb Corns Ltd v New Gatitu Service Station Ltd & Another
    (1990) eKLR
  • Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & Another v Stephen Mutinda Mule & another
    [2013] eKLR
  • Dakianga Distributors Ltd v Kenya Seed Company Ltd
    (2015) eKLR
  • Mohammed & Another v Haidara
    [1972] EA 166
  • Nancy Kahoya Amadiva v Expert Credit Limited & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Trust Bank Limited v Kiran Ramji Kotendia
    Civil Appeal No 61 of 2000 eKLR
  • James Ombere Okoth v East African Building Society and others
    Civil Appeal No 202 of 1996 (unreported)
  • Malawi Railways Limited v Nyasulu
    [1998] MWSC 3
  • Adetoun Oladeji (NIG) Limited v Nigeria Breweries PLC
    SC 91/2002
  • Libyan Arab Uganda Bank for Foreign Trade and Development & Anor v Adam Vassiliadis
    [1986] UGCA 6
  • Jones v National Coal Board
    [1957] 2 QB 55
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act over land charged to the 1st Defendant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Webtribe Limited t/a Jambopay v Equity Bank (Kenya) Limited & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E005 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 59 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Originating Summons dated 9th February 2022 (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/59/eng@2023-01-18

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