Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 1820 (KLR)

Syovathu v Kanyi & another (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1820 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 March 2024
2,953 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a homeowner's injunction suit because disputes about a bank's power to sell charged property belong in the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff moved the Environment and Land Court at Malindi by Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2023 seeking temporary injunctions restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from selling by public auction or interfering with Maisonette Number 30, Ivory Court Estate on subdivision Number 448 (Original Number 442/7), Mainland North. The suit sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 18th March 2015 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant, a chargee that had issued a 40-day statutory notice following the 1st defendant's default on loan facilities, raised a preliminary objection contending that the dispute was commercial (concerning the statutory power of sale) and not a land dispute within ELC jurisdiction. The court identified the predominant issue as the subsisting legal charge and the ensuing statutory power of sale, with allegations of fraud and lack of due diligence in the creation of the charge being secondary. Relying on Court of Appeal precedent as applied in Thomas Mutuku Kasue and Keter v Ecobank, the court held that the High Court is the proper forum. Following Phoenix of E.A. Assurance and Equity Bank v Mutie, the court held that a suit filed without jurisdiction is dead on arrival and cannot be transferred. The court accordingly downed tools, struck out both the pending application and the entire suit, and awarded costs to the 2nd defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute centred on a registered charge and statutory power of sale

Holding

The court lacked jurisdiction; the predominant issue was the legal charge and statutory notice of sale, which belongs to the High Court

Reasoning

Applying Court of Appeal precedent, the court held that where the predominant issue involves mortgages, charges and statutory notices, the High Court, not the ELC, has jurisdiction. The applicant's claim of fraud in creation of the charge and want of due diligence by the chargee were secondary to the charge and power of sale. Specific performance claims against the chargor could not confer jurisdiction absent privity with the 2nd respondent.

p. 5
02

Whether the suit should be transferred or struck out

Holding

Struck out, since a suit filed without jurisdiction cannot be transferred

Reasoning

Relying on Phoenix of E.A. Assurance and Equity Bank v Mutie, the court held that no competent suit exists capable of transfer once filed in a court lacking jurisdiction; the only remedy is withdrawal and filing in a court seized of jurisdiction.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where the predominant issue in a suit is a legal charge and the exercise of the chargee's statutory power of sale, jurisdiction lies in the High Court and not the Environment and Land Court
  • A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is dead on arrival and must be struck out, not transferred, as jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or transfer
  • Jurisdiction is fundamental; a court without jurisdiction must down tools immediately

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The pending Notice of Motion application dated 20th July 2023 is struck out
  2. 2.The entire suit is struck out
  3. 3.Costs to the 2nd respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A, 18
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 & 2; Order 51 Rule 1
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b); Article 159

Cases cited (13)

  • Cooperative Bank Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Thomas Mutuku Kasue v Housing Finance Company Ltd (HFC) & Another
    [2021] eKLR
  • Albert Chaurembo Mumba & 7 Others v Maurice Munyao & 148 Others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Phoenix of E.A. Assurance Company Limited v M. Thiga t/a Newspaper Service
    [2019] eKLR
  • Lydia Nyambura Mbugua v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Ltd
    [2018] eKLR
  • Cooperative Bank of Kenya v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 Others
    Msa. CA No. 83 of 2016
  • DJC v BKL
    (Civil Suit E021 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 10189 (KLR) (27 June 2022)
  • Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shahbal & 2 Others
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd.
    (1969) EA 696
  • Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Jane Cheperenger & 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] eKLR
  • Keter v Ecobank Kenya Limited
    (Civil Case 16 of 2018) [2022] KEHC 13352 (KLR) (28 September 2022)
  • Equity Bank Limited v Bruce Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour Travel
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (jurisdiction challenged via preliminary objection)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Syovathu v Kanyi & another (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1820 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1820/eng@2024-03-20

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