Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtDismissed· [2013] KEHC 1652 (KLR)

PETER KINUTHIA WATHUO v CO-OPERATIVE BANK K LTD

High Court of Kenya
24 July 2013
1,592 words in judgment
View original judgment Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Banks can proceed with property sales against guarantors if they followed the contract and served proper legal notices, even if the guarantor disputes the loan terms.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, a guarantor who had charged two parcels of land (LR.Nos.Bukhayo/Mundika/6954 and South Teso/Angoromo/5590) to secure a Kshs.2,000,000/- loan advanced by the Defendant bank to principal debtor Jackson Kimani Ndungu, sought a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX (now Order 42) Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to restrain sale of the suit properties. He argued that the bank had not exhausted remedies against the principal debtor, had varied the interest rate to the detriment of the debtor, and had not served the requisite statutory notices. The Defendant, through its Branch Manager Daniel Kimosop, denied these claims and annexed statutory notices sent by registered post. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court found no prima facie case. It held that the charge contained no requirement to first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor; that a dispute over the interest rate or amount owed cannot constitute a prima facie case per Mrao Ltd v First American Bank; and that service of the statutory notices by registered post to the Plaintiff's last known postal address under Clause 14 of the charge was valid. Any damage from sale would be quantifiable and compensable in damages. The application dated 27th September 2010 was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a guarantor can resist sale of the charged security on the ground that the chargee did not first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor

Holding

No - the charge instrument contained no such requirement and there is no legal requirement to that effect

Reasoning

The court perused the instrument of charge and found no clause requiring the Defendant to first exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before calling on the guarantor. The Plaintiff's assertion was therefore unsupported by the charge, and the Defendant was entitled to proceed against the guarantor's charged properties upon default.

p. 3
02

Whether an alleged variation of the interest rate contrary to the charge constitutes a prima facie case for injunction

Holding

No - a dispute over the amount owed cannot constitute a prima facie case, and the claim was unsupported by evidence

Reasoning

Relying on Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the court held that a dispute as to the amount owed cannot found a prima facie case for injunction. The Plaintiff's claim that the interest charged was not contractual was not supported by evidence, so this ground failed at the interlocutory stage.

p. 3
03

Whether the Plaintiff was served with the requisite statutory notices before exercise of the statutory power of sale

Holding

Yes - notices were sent by registered post to the Plaintiff's last known postal address as stated in the charge

Reasoning

The Defendant annexed statutory notices dated 6th February 2006 and 18th February 2010 and a notice of redemption dated 21st July 2010, all sent by registered post to the Plaintiff's stated postal address (c/o P.O. Box 666, Busia). Clause 14 of the charge provided for service at the last known postal address, and no change of address was communicated.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • There is no legal requirement that a chargee first exhaust its remedies against the principal debtor before exercising its rights against the guarantor.
  • A dispute over the sum owed cannot constitute a prima facie case to entitle the court to grant an order of injunction.
  • Service on a chargor through his last known postal address as stated in the instrument of charge is valid where no change of address was communicated.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 27th September 2010 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XXXIX (now Order 42) Rules 1 & 3
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3 & 3A
  • Registered Land Act (now repealed)Sections 74 and 79

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella –Vs- Cassman Brown
    [1973] EA 358

    Principles for granting temporary injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable damage, balance of convenience

  • Mrao Ltd –VS- First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125

    A dispute over the sum owed cannot constitute a prima facie case for an injunction

Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction; application under Order XXXIX (now Order 42) Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "PETER KINUTHIA WATHUO v CO-OPERATIVE BANK K LTD", Case Analysis (2013). . Source: 

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