GIRO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs HALID HAMAD MUTESI [2002] KECA 158 (KLR)

GIRO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED vs HALID HAMAD MUTESI [2002] KECA 158 (KLR)

 

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA

AT MALINDI

civ app 342 of 2000

GIRO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED .........................APPELLANT

AND

HALID HAMAD MUTESI ..................................RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

This is an interlocutory appeal from a ruling and order of the superior court (Mrs. Khaminwa, Commissioner of Assize) whereby that court granted an injunction restraining the defendant (the appellant before us) from selling by auction or private treaty the plaintiff's (the respondent here) Plot No. L.R. 3156, Section 1, M.N. Mombasa (the suit property) until the hearing and determination of Mombasa H.C.C.C. NO. 205 of 2000.The respondent had borrowed money from the appellant on the security of the suit property and at this stage we see no need to go into what happened between the parties as regards sale of the respondent's property known as L.R. NO. 1613/V/M.N. Mombasa as it is not relevant. After the sale of that property the suit property remained charged to the appellant for the loan which the respondent still had and was to get from the appellant.

The respondent requested the appellant to increase his loan facility and agreed to charge another property to secure the further facility he was to get. That charge never came into existence as the bank with which that property was charged declined to give a discharge of the charge until it was paid the sum due to it and secured by the charge. As at 18th March, 1999 the respondent was indebted to the appellant in the sum of Shs.9,134,486/65 and was not servicing the loan. It is not in dispute that the appellant gave the requisite notice to the respondent calling upon him to pay up the debt with a warning to him that the suit property would be put up for auction unless he paid the debt. It is common ground that the notice was pursuant to the provisions of Section 69(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. It is also not in dispute that after the expiry of that notice the appellant's agents Yusuf Datoo & Associates issued a notice advertising sale of the suit property after giving the appellant a 45 day notice to redeem the property.

The only dispute really raised by the respondent was that the appellant had not carried out a proper valuation of the suit property prior to putting up the property for sale and that the notification of sale did not contain the true value of the suit property. Whereas the respondent had the suit property valued at Shs.13,000,000/= the auctioneer had put the same, for a forced sale, at Sh,11,000,000/= . The respondent had complained that the property was not properly described. The alleged misdescription was that it was not stated that the construction of the building on the property was complete. It was on these complaints that the learned Commissioner of Assize granted the injunction which is now the subject matter of this appeal. It has been held time and again that a mortgagee cannot be restrained from exercising his power of sale because the amount due is in dispute, or that the mortgagor has commenced a redemption action or because the mortgagor objects to the manner in which the sale is being arranged. See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 32, paragraph 725.

In view of the admitted facts, and in view of the fact that the debt was admittedly due and further that the loan was not being serviced, the superior court should not have granted the injunction. The first principle as laid down in Giella v. Cassman Brown guidance was not satisfied, that is to say, the respondent had not made out a prima facie case with a probability of success. The learned Commissioner of Assize therefore erred in granting the injunction. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed. The order of injunction made on 30th May, 2000, is hereby set aside; the respondent's application dated 24th April, 2000 filed on 25th April, 2000 is dismissed with costs. The appellant will also have the costs of this appeal.

Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 18th of January, 2002.

R.O. KWACH

........................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

A.B. SHAH

......................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

M. Ole KEIWU A

......................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I certify that this is a true copy of the original.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

▲ To the top

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 10

Judgment 10
1. Auto Cats International Limited & 6 others v DIB Bank Kenya Limited (Commercial Case E058 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1552 (KLR) (20 February 2025) (Ruling) Mentioned
2. Brick & Mortar Holdings Limited v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited & another (Civil Case E216 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 13425 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (23 September 2022) (Ruling) Mentioned
3. Githui v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited & 2 others (Civil Case E153 of 2023) [2024] KEHC 10277 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (15 August 2024) (Ruling) Explained
4. Kamanthe v SBM Bank (K) Limited & another (Environment & Land Case E066 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 17804 (KLR) (29 May 2023) (Ruling) Mentioned
5. Kawaken Holding Limited v Cooperative Bank of Kenya & another (Civil Suit E248 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 1492 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (19 February 2024) (Ruling) Explained
6. Ngangu v Agricultural Finance Corporation & another (Civil Case E004 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 3418 (KLR) (11 April 2024) (Ruling) Mentioned
7. Obama Enterprises Limited & 2 others v Kenya Women Microfinance Bank Limited (Civil Case E315 of 2021) [2021] KEHC 351 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (16 December 2021) (Ruling) Explained
8. Registered Trustees of the National Council of Churches of Kenya v Sbm Bank Limited & another (Commercial Suit E001 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 10209 (KLR) (10 July 2024) (Ruling) Mentioned
9. Viazi Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (Commercial Case E947 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 13973 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (7 October 2022) (Ruling) Followed
10. Wambui & another v Equity Bank Kenya Ltd (Environment & Land Case 181 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 13524 (KLR) (29 September 2022) (Ruling) Mentioned