Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELCA.37.2014 -NBI· [2026] KEELC 5163 (KLR)

Ufundi Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Ltd v Obara & 190 others (Environment and Land Appeal 37 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5163 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 August 2026
GKG J Kemei
1,248 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court refused to allow private sale of Ufundi Coop Plaza because both sides failed to back their claims with actual evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 10 February 2026, the 2nd Respondent/Applicant sought leave for the firm of Peter Warindu & Co Advocates to come on record, and orders for execution of the judgment and decree dated 6 January 2024 by directing that LR No 209/2571, Nairobi (Ufundi Coop Plaza) be sold by private treaty, with proceeds deposited with the Deputy Registrar for remittance. The application was anchored on Sections 38, 51, 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 22 and 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant argued that the judgment required the appellant to redeem, dispose of and divide the sale proceeds, that the appellant had instead collected rent for its own benefit, was defunct and deregistered, and that its directors had frustrated the sale through a caveat emptor notice. The appellant opposed, contending the application was mischief-laden, that the applicant lacked locus, that the court was functus, and that the appellant's mandate to sell, pay the Cooperative Bank loan and distribute the balance remained in force. The court allowed the prayer for leave under Order 9 Rule 9 but found the substantive application unmeritorious. It noted the prior ruling of 5 June 2026 on a similar prayer, held that the appellant's bare assertions of compliance were inadequate but equally that the applicant's allegations of the Society's defunct status were unsupported bare averments, and that since the judgment had not been varied, appealed or reviewed, the application was dismissed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant was entitled to have the judgment executed through sale of the suit property by private treaty

Holding

No; the application was unmeritorious. The judgment stands unvaried, the appellant asserted compliance by paying the loan from rent, and the applicant's allegations of the appellant's defunct status were unsupported bare averments.

Reasoning

The court had ordered the appellants to dispose of the property, pay the bank loan and distribute the balance to members. The appellant asserted it was complying by collecting rent and paying the loan but produced no minutes evidencing member briefings. The applicant alleged the Society was defunct and its board incapable of implementing the judgment, but offered no cogent evidence. Absent any variation, appeal or review of the judgment, the court could not disturb the existing implementation mandate.

p. 5
02

Whether leave should issue for new counsel to come on record

Holding

Yes; the threshold under Order 9 Rule 9 was satisfied and that prayer was allowed.

Reasoning

The court separately considered the prayer for leave for the firm of Peter Warindu & Co Advocates to act for the 2nd Respondent and found the Order 9 Rule 9 threshold met. This was granted even though the substantive prayers failed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party alleging that an entity is defunct or its organs incapable of acting must support such allegations with cogent evidence; bare averments do not assist the court.
  • A party claiming compliance with a judgment must adduce evidence of compliance, not mere assertions.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Peter Warindu & Co Advocates to act for the 2nd Respondent under Order 9 Rule 9
  2. 2.The application (main prayers) dismissed
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 38, 51, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rules 7, 9, 29, 30, 48, 55, 68, 69, 82, 83
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 50 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 9
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 38, 51, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 22 and 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ufundi Savings & Credit Cooperative Society Ltd v Obara & 190 others (Environment and Land Appeal 37 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 5163 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA.37.2014 -NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5163/eng@2026-08-06

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