Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No. 248 of 2016· [2018] KECA 670 (KLR)

Eastlands Theatres Limited & 2 others v Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited

Court of Appeal
20 April 2018
3,616 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed lenders can sue guarantors years after default, but interest above the agreed 15% rate is unlawful and recoverable.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Waki, Nambuye and Musinga, JJ.A.) against the High Court's judgment (Koome, J.) awarding Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited Kshs.23,978,096.30 with interest against Eastlands Theatres Limited, with the two guarantors, James Samuel Kinyanjui and Ann Njeri Kinyanjui, jointly and severally liable for Kshs.7,000,000 each. The appellants clustered twelve grounds into six issues: limitation, illegality of interest and charges, validity of the guarantees, sale of the charged property at an undervalue, sufficiency of proof, and the trial judge's handling of the matter. The court held that under demand guarantees, limitation runs only from formal demand, which was made on 11th February 1983, so the suit filed in November 1988 was not time barred. It upheld the validity of the separately executed guarantees, holding there is no requirement that guarantees be contained in one document and that separate execution created no additional liability. It rejected the claim that the property was sold at an undervalue for want of pleadings and evidence, and upheld the legality of the debited charges. The appeal succeeded only on the ground that the judgment sum was computed using interest rates exceeding the contractual and lawful rate of 13% to 15% per annum. The Court varied the decision below by allowing that ground, dismissed the rest, and remitted the matter to the High Court solely to compute the sum due at the appropriate interest rates, awarding the appellants one quarter of the costs of the appeal. The decision binds subordinate courts and the High Court on the accrual of limitation under demand guarantees.

Key legal issues

#
01

When does limitation begin to run against a guarantor under a demand guarantee?

Holding

Time began to run on 11th February, 1983 when formal demand was made on the guarantors; the letter of 16th March 1982 was a request for an instalment, not a formal demand. The suit filed in November 1988 was therefore within the six-year limitation period.

Reasoning

Clause 1 of the guarantees made payment payable 'on your demand in writing'. A contextual reading of the 16th March 1982 letter shows it requested payment of a capital instalment only and was addressed to the 2nd appellant alone. The advocate's letters of 11th February 1983 demanded the guaranteed sums from each guarantor and thus constituted the formal demand triggering the cause of action and the limitation period.

p. 4
02

Whether separately executed guarantees were void and unenforceable

Holding

The guarantees were valid notwithstanding that they were contained in two separate documents rather than one joint and several guarantee.

Reasoning

The court found no statutory requirement that guarantees be contained in a single document. Clause 11 of the guarantee expressly contemplated separate execution, deeming each signatory liable as if each had signed separate instruments. Separate execution therefore created no additional liability beyond the guaranteed sum of Kshs.7,000,000 plus interest, and the guarantors could not escape liability on that basis.

p. 4
03

Whether the judgment sum was inflated by unlawful interest computation

Holding

This ground succeeded: the sum of Kshs.23,978,096.30 was computed at rates exceeding the lawful rate of 13% to 15% per annum and was therefore erroneous.

Reasoning

The trial court had fixed the lawful rate at 13% per annum per the letter of offer, which allowed increase only up to 15%. There was no cross-appeal by the respondent. The respondent's own statement of account showed interest charged at rates up to 20%, well above the lawful rate. The correct amount was the advanced sum plus lawful charges and interest at no more than 15% per annum; computation of the exact figure was remitted to the High Court.

p. 5
04

Whether the charged property was sold at an undervalue

Holding

The ground failed: the appellants pleaded no counterclaim for the difference and led no evidence establishing undervalue.

Reasoning

The appellants relied on subsequent charges registered over the property to infer a higher value, but no witness explained the circumstances in which those charges were created. The trial judge correctly noted that without a counterclaim for the difference between market value and the realised sum, and without appropriate pleadings and evidence, no finding of undervalue could be made.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a guarantee requires a valid demand as an ingredient of the creditor's cause of action, limitation does not begin to run against the guarantor until formal demand is made.
  • The issue of limitation goes to jurisdiction and must be dealt with first whenever raised.
  • Separately executed guarantees by multiple guarantors of the same debt are valid and create no liability beyond the guaranteed amount.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The ground of appeal that the principal sum of Kshs.23,978,096.30 was wrongly arrived at by application of interest rates higher than the agreed rate was allowed
  2. 2.All other grounds of appeal were dismissed
  3. 3.The matter was remitted to the High Court for the sole purpose of computing the sum due at the appropriate interest rates
  4. 4.The appellants were awarded one quarter of the costs of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 4640 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 164 of the Constitution (appellate jurisdiction over the High Court); the judgment does not cite a specific provision

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (5)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Eastlands Theatres Limited & 2 others v Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/670/eng@2018-04-20

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