By Jerameel Kevins Owuor Odhiambo
Worth Noting:
- The judgment also addressed the critical issue of locus standi in such cases. The Court ruled that tenants or other third parties lacking a proprietary interest in the charged property do not have the legal standing to challenge a chargee’s exercise of the statutory power of sale.
- This position reinforces the principle established in Nairobi Mamba Village v National Bank of Kenya [2002] 1 EA 197, where it was held that only the chargor could legitimately complain about the unlawful, irregular, or oppressive exercise of the power of sale.
- Furthermore, the Court’s decision on res judicata is significant. It held that the addition of new parties in subsequent suits does not necessarily preclude the application of res judicata if the issues, subject matter, and cause of action remain substantially the same.
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 states: “Parliament shall establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land.” This provision laid the foundation for the establishment of the Environment and Land Court (ELC). However, a recent Court of Appeal decision in Bank of Africa Kenya Limited & another v TSS Investment Limited & 2 others (Civil Appeal E055 of 2022) [2024] KECA 410 (KLR) has provided crucial clarity on the jurisdictional limits of the ELC, particularly in matters involving land charges and financial securities.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling primarily addressed three key issues: the ELC’s jurisdiction in matters involving land charges, the locus standi of tenants in challenging a chargee’s power of sale, and the application of res judicata in such cases. In a decisive judgment, the Court held that the ELC lacked jurisdiction to entertain disputes primarily concerning the enforcement of financial securities, such as charges on land. This decision effectively narrows the scope of the ELC’s mandate, confining it more strictly to matters directly related to land use, environment, and occupation.
Central to the Court’s reasoning was the distinction between land use and financial dispositions. The Court emphasized that “a charge is a disposition that has no direct contractual relation to ‘use’ (by a tenant or licensee) as in this case, of a chargor’s land.” This interpretation aligns with previous decisions, such as Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 others [2017] eKLR, where the Court held that the ELC’s jurisdiction over contracts should be understood within the context of land use, not extending to mortgages, charges, or collection of dues and rents.
The judgment also addressed the critical issue of locus standi in such cases. The Court ruled that tenants or other third parties lacking a proprietary interest in the charged property do not have the legal standing to challenge a chargee’s exercise of the statutory power of sale. This position reinforces the principle established in Nairobi Mamba Village v National Bank of Kenya [2002] 1 EA 197, where it was held that only the chargor could legitimately complain about the unlawful, irregular, or oppressive exercise of the power of sale.
Furthermore, the Court’s decision on res judicata is significant. It held that the addition of new parties in subsequent suits does not necessarily preclude the application of res judicata if the issues, subject matter, and cause of action remain substantially the same. This ruling is in line with the principles outlined in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR) and reinforces the importance of finality in litigation.
The impact of this judgment on Kenya’s legal landscape is profound. It clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the ELC and civil courts, ensuring that matters primarily concerning financial securities are heard in the appropriate forum. This delineation is crucial for maintaining the specialized nature of the ELC as envisioned in the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011.
For financial institutions, this ruling provides greater certainty in enforcing their security interests. It reaffirms their right to exercise the power of sale without undue interference from third parties, provided they adhere to the statutory requirements outlined in the Land Act, 2012. This clarity is likely to enhance confidence in secured lending, potentially leading to more favorable terms for borrowers in the long run.
However, the decision also raises important considerations for tenants and other occupants of charged properties. While it limits their ability to directly challenge a chargee’s power of sale, it underscores the importance of due diligence in entering into lease agreements. Tenants may need to seek additional protections or clarifications regarding the status of the property before entering into lease agreements.
In conclusion, this landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal significantly contributes to the jurisprudence on land law and financial securities in Kenya. It reinforces the principle of specialized courts while ensuring that matters of financial securities are dealt with in the appropriate civil forums. As noted by legal scholar Patricia Kameri-Mbote in her work on property rights in Kenya, such clarifications are essential for the effective functioning of a complex legal system dealing with land and financial matters. Moving forward, this decision will likely shape the approach to similar cases, providing a clear framework for addressing disputes at the intersection of land law and financial securities.
The writer is a lawyer and legal researcher
Similar Posts by Mt Kenya Times:
- Kwekwe at a Crossroads: Mining, Water and Social Strain in the Midlands
- Extending Terms, Testing Trust: Zimbabwe’s Bill 3 Debate
- Blind, not blinkered: Why the law must never wear a gendered face
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER May 19, 2026
- Beyond CAB3: the structural failures eroding Zimbabwe’s politics
Mt Kenya Times