[2007] KEHC 735 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 735 (KLR)

The court found that there was no proof that the Plaintiff was served with the statutory notice as required by Section 74 of the Registered Land Act. The notice relied upon by the Defendants was dated seven years prior to the purported sale, and no evidence of service was provided. The court held that, on a balance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 735 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joel Kipsewer Kendagor; Defendant: Kirigiriro Self Help Group; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank; Defendant: John Kamau Kimani; Defendant: Samuel Kamau Munga; Defendant: Peter Njoroge Waweru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 58 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interim Application
Outcome
Interim orders granted in terms of prayers 2, 3, and 5 of the application dated 2nd May 2006, with costs to the Plaintiff and the Second to Fifth Defendants.
Legal Topics
Statutory Notice Requirements, Mortgagee Right of Sale, Service of Process, Interim Injunctions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Statutory Notice Requirements Mortgagee Right of Sale Service of Process Interim Injunctions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel Kipsewer Kendagor

Plaintiff

Kirigiriro Self Help Group

Defendant

Kenya Commercial Bank

Defendant

John Kamau Kimani

Defendant

Samuel Kamau Munga

Defendant

Peter Njoroge Waweru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interim Application

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff was served with the statutory notice as required by Section 74 of the Registered Land Act before the sale of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory notice dated 20th August 1998 was valid and properly served given the sale occurred seven years later.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of proper notice entitles the Plaintiff to interim orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no proof that the Plaintiff was served with the statutory notice as required by Section 74 of the Registered Land Act. The notice relied upon by the Defendants was dated seven years prior to the purported sale, and no evidence of service was provided. The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the absence of proper notice rendered the sale process questionable and established a high probability of success for the Plaintiff's case. Consequently, the court granted the interim orders sought by the Plaintiff to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

Interim orders granted in terms of prayers 2, 3, and 5 of the application dated 2nd May 2006, with costs to the Plaintiff and the Second to Fifth Defendants.

Orders

  • Interim orders as sought in prayers 2, 3, and 5 of the application dated 2nd May 2006 are granted.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff and the Second to Fifth Defendants.