Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 10th February 2025 (suit over Land Parcel Ngariama/Merichi/3225)· [2025] KEELC 5484 (KLR)

Njuki v Business Partners Int’L Kenya Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5484 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 July 2025
3,232 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stopped the auction of a man's home because his son may have exceeded his authority when using the family land as loan security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Dickson Kabuga Njuki, moved the Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya by Notice of Motion dated 10th February 2025 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from auctioning Land Parcel Ngariama/Merichi/3225, of which he is a joint registered proprietor with his son, George Kabugi Njuki. The property had been charged on 30th March 2022 to secure a Kshs 11,000,000/- loan advanced by the 1st Respondent to Teybridge Limited, a company associated with the son, with the charge executed by the son under a General Power of Attorney. The Applicant denied borrowing or benefiting from the loan and contended the power of attorney was conditional on acts being for his benefit and subject to his ratification. The 1st Respondent countered that the registered power of attorney validly authorised the son to secure financial facilities, that the Applicant was aware, and that interim orders were obtained by material non-disclosure. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, Mrao Ltd and Nguruman Ltd, the court held the Applicant's co-ownership was undisputed and the scope of the power of attorney was a triable issue, constituting a prima facie case with probability of success. The court also found that loss of the Applicant's only residence in Kenya would amount to irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, the 1st Respondent retaining its registered charge and able to enforce it if successful at trial. The court granted the injunction in terms of prayer (3) and awarded the Plaintiff the costs of the application. Ruling dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kerugoya on 23rd July 2025 by J. M. Mutungi, ELC Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case

Holding

Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success

Reasoning

The Applicant's co-ownership was undisputed, and whether the donee's use of the property as security fell within or outside the scope of the power of attorney was a triable issue. The court found the power of attorney appeared limited to acts for the donor's benefit, raising serious legal and factual questions about potential overreach that could not be summarily determined at the interlocutory stage.

p. 5
02

Irreparable harm

Holding

Applicant showed likelihood of irreparable harm not compensable by damages

Reasoning

The suit property was the Applicant's only residence in Kenya, developed by him, unrebutted by the 1st Respondent. Loss of a dwelling place, particularly where shelter rights are engaged, may constitute irreparable harm. An auction followed by success at trial would leave the Applicant without his residential home.

p. 6
03

Balance of convenience

Holding

Balance of convenience favoured the Applicant

Reasoning

The status quo was the Applicant's possession and co-ownership; the risk was extinguishment of that right before trial. The 1st Respondent retains its registered charge and may enforce its security if successful, whereas sale before trial would deprive the Applicant of his home, a far more consequential harm.

p. 6
04

Scope of the power of attorney

Holding

The power of attorney appeared limited to acts benefiting the donor; its scope is a triable issue

Reasoning

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 were prefaced 'for the Donor and in the Donor's name and benefit'. Clause 6's ratification clause covered only lawful acts for the donor's benefit, not acts outside the instrument's scope. There was no evidence the donor knew the land was being used to secure a loan to a company in which he had no interest. This is for trial.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A donee under a power of attorney limited to acts for the donor's benefit cannot rely on a general ratification clause to validate acts outside that scope.
  • Loss of a dwelling place may amount to irreparable harm, particularly where the right to shelter is concerned.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agents and/or servants, from selling through auction Land Parcel Ngariama/Merichi/3225 pending the hearing and determination of the suit, in terms of prayer (3) of the Notice of Motion
  2. 2.Plaintiff granted the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Environment and Land Court Act
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 40 and 159

Cases cited (6)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • Said Ahmed v Manasseh Denga & Another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Kangogo & Another (Suing as the administrators of the Estate of the Late Richard Chelimo Kangogo) v Industrial and Commercial Development
    (Civil Case No. 2 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 4501 (KLR)
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    (2003) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the Environment and Land Court Act, and Articles 40 and 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njuki v Business Partners Int’L Kenya Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 10th February 2025 (suit over Land Parcel Ngariama/Merichi/3225). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5484/eng@2025-07-23

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