Plaintiff v Kariuki & Another (Ejectment from Charged Land)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court ruled that a registered buyer of land sold at a bank auction keeps the title, and former owners' complaints belong with the bank, not the buyer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Title of purchaser at bank auction versus occupation by chargor's family
The plaintiff's registered title prevailed; defendants had no legal right to remain in occupation
The plaintiff bought from the estate agent who purchased at the auction, obtained Land Control Board consent and was registered as proprietor. The defendants' grievances about the auction concerned the bank, not the plaintiff, and their evidence was irrelevant and disbelieved.
Credibility of the defence evidence
DW1's evidence was rejected as untruthful and irrelevant
DW1 deponed falsely that the chargees sold the land to the plaintiff, and admitted in cross-examination that he did not live on the premises despite deponing otherwise. Key witnesses (the defendants and the brother who benefited from the loan) were not called, particularly on service of notice of sale.
Inference of due service/compliance by the chargee's advocates
The court inferred Hamilton Harrison & Mathews, acting for the bank, complied with notice requirements
The auction advertisement was prominent in the Daily Nation and stated it was conducted on instructions of Hamilton Harrison & Mathews, a long-standing firm of advocates. The court held it hardly likely such a firm failed to comply with service requirements, and that educated businessmen DW1 and his brother must have seen the advertisement.
Legal principles established
#- A registered purchaser from an estate agent who has obtained transfer and registration holds title good against former occupants of the charged land
- Complaints about service of notice of sale or the auction price lie against the chargee/bank, not a bona fide purchaser at the auction
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment for the plaintiff in terms of orders No. 1, 2 and 4 prayed for in the originating summons
- 2.Costs to be taxed as in the case of a suit filed by way of a plaint
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court via originating summons (not expressly stated in judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiff v Kariuki & Another (Ejectment from Charged Land)", Case Analysis (1989). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.