Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELCL MISC/E067/2025

Guaranty Trust Bank (Kenya) Limited v Mohamed (As the Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Yusuf Mohamud Mohamed - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E067 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1491 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 March 2026
1,646 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that banks must ask the High Court, not the Land Court, for permission to sell mortgaged property below its forced-sale value.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Guaranty Trust Bank (Kenya) Limited, as chargee, filed an Originating Summons seeking leave to exercise its statutory power of sale over Title Number KJD/DALALEKUTUK/12556 and to sell the property at the best obtainable price even if below the forced-sale value. The loan of Kshs. 35,000,000/= advanced to Colt Petroleum Limited and secured by a charge over land registered in the name of Yusuf Mohamud Mohamed had fallen into arrears. Three public auctions between October 2024 and September 2025 produced bids well below the forced sale value, prompting the application. The defendants were served but did not participate. The court framed a single issue: whether it had jurisdiction to sanction the exercise of the statutory power of sale below the reserve price. Relying on Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(5) of the ELC Act, and the binding Court of Appeal decision in Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, the court held that mortgages and charges, including realization of security, fall within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court and not the ELC, as such disputes have nothing to do with the use and occupation of, or title to, land. The court expressly disagreed with Lydia Nyambura Mbugua v Diamond Trust Bank. The Originating Summons was struck out with no orders as to costs, given the defendants' non-participation.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to sanction the exercise of the statutory power of sale by a chargee over land below the forced sale value

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to sanction sale of charged property below the forced sale value

Holding

It does not; the dispute concerns realization of a charge, a commercial relationship reserved for the High Court

Reasoning

Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute. The ELC's mandate under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13(5) of the ELC Act is limited to disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land. The Court of Appeal in Co-operative Bank v Kangethe Njuguna authoritatively held that mortgages and charges fall outside this scope, and that decision binds this court. The plaintiff's request was merely for sanction to realize security upon default, which has nothing to do with use and occupation of, or title to, land. The court therefore respectfully disagreed with Lydia Nyambura Mbugua and struck out the Originating Summons.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELC lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning mortgages and charges; realization of security is a commercial matter for the High Court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiff's Originating Summons is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011

Relief refused

#

Leave to exercise statutory power of sale over Title Number KJD/DALALEKUTUK/12556 and sell at the best obtainable price even below the forced-sale value

The court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute concerns realization of a charge, a commercial matter within the High Court's civil jurisdiction

p. 9

Costs of the application

The Defendants had not entered appearance or participated in the proceedings

p. 9

Costs

No orders as to costs - each party to bear their own costs, the Defendants not having entered appearance or participated.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is a commercial relationship and the court vested with the jurisdiction is the High Court.
p. 9Jurisdiction - charge realization is for the High Court
I do not see how the matter fits into the scope of the jurisdiction of this court.
p. 9Lack of jurisdiction
the court having arrived at the conclusion that it lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and determine this matter, the only option is to strike out the Plaintiff’s OS which I hereby do but with no orders as to costs
p. 9Final orders - strike out with no costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal date inconsistencies: the Originating Summons is dated 9th October 2025, directions were on 29th January 2026, and submissions dated 4th September 2026, yet judgment is delivered 5th March 2026 - submissions post-date the judgment.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Guaranty Trust Bank (Kenya) Limited v Mohamed (As the Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Yusuf Mohamud Mohamed - Deceased) & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E067 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1491 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL MISC/E067/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1491/eng@2026-03-05

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