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 AppealDismissedCourt of Appeal appeal from ELC Civil Suit No. 41 of 2009· [2024] KECA 1802 (KLR)

Four Farms Limited v Agriculture Finance Corporation & 8 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
20 December 2024
14,996 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~60 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that once a valid auction of charged land happens, the borrower's ownership rights end and any complaints can only be pursued as damages.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Court of Appeal decision (Murgor, Lesiit and Odunga, JJA) dismissed a first appeal against the judgment of A. Omollo, J. of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa in ELC Civil Suit No. 41 of 2009. The appellant, Agricultural Finance Corporation's borrower, challenged the bank's sale of its 133.4-acre property by public auction to the 2nd respondent for Kshs.38,445,000 and the subsequent transfers of subdivisions. Before the merits, the Court noted the withdrawal of the appeal against the 20th respondent, which caused the appeal against the 21st respondent, a subsequent purchaser, to collapse. On the merits, the Court affirmed the trial court: the 1988/1989 consent orders did not discharge the charge, the mother title did not cease to exist until all deed plans were registered and titles issued, and the statutory power of sale under the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act and the repealed Registered Land Act was validly exercised with proper statutory notices and advertisement. The Court held that the 1st respondent, being a government body, was exempt from Land Control Board consent under section 6(3)(b) of the Land Control Act, and that in any event an auction sale is by operation of law, not a contractual dealing requiring consent. Relying on Mbuthia v Jimba Credit Finance Corporation and Mwambeje Ranching, the Court reiterated that a chargor's equity of redemption is extinguished at the fall of the hammer, and that any anomaly in an activated statutory power of sale is remediable only in damages. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the mother title ceased to exist upon subdivision, extinguishing the 1st respondent's statutory power of sale

Holding

The mother title did not cease to exist; the charge survived the subdivisions and the statutory power of sale was not lost.

Reasoning

The consent of 24th November 1988 contained no express stipulation discharging the existing charge. PW1 admitted in evidence that AFC had a charge over the resultant titles. At the time of the auction, titles to the subdivisions had not been issued, so the parties still dealt with the property by its original title. The mother title could only cease to exist after all deed plans had been registered and titles effectively produced.

p. 18
02

Whether the repealed Registered Land Act rather than the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act governed the transaction

Holding

The Registered Land Act properly applied; nothing in the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act excluded its operation.

Reasoning

There is no provision in the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act excluding the application of the Registered Land Act to transactions under the former. The repealed Act was the statute guiding dealings in registered land, including charges and realisation of securities, whether registered thereunder or under the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act.

p. 18
03

Whether Land Control Board consent was required for the auction sale and subsequent transfers

Holding

No consent was required: the 1st respondent as a government body enjoyed the exemption under section 6(3)(b) of the Land Control Act, and an auction sale is by operation of law, not a contractual dealing.

Reasoning

Section 6(3)(b) of the Land Control Act exempts transactions to which the Government is a party, and section 3(4) and 4(2) of the Agricultural Finance Corporation Act establish the 1st respondent as a government body. Further, a sale by public auction in exercise of a statutory power of sale is not a contractual sale; it is complete at the fall of the hammer and the proviso to section 3 of the Law of Contract Act and the Public Trustee v Wanduru Ndegwa principle confirm the Land Control Act does not apply to acquisitions by operation of law.

p. 22
04

Whether the property was properly advertised and described in the auction advertisement

Holding

The advertisement of the mother title instead of the subdivisions caused no prejudice and the sale could not be faulted for mis-description.

Reasoning

The titles to the subdivisions had not been issued at the date of the auction, so the auctioneer's option was to describe the property per the lands office records, being LR No. 544/III/M.N. The parties themselves continued referring to the property by its original title even after subdivision, and PW1 neither pleaded nor proved non-service of statutory notices. The difference in acreage was a minor issue that could not alter the terms of the sale.

p. 16
05

Remedy for an irregular exercise of statutory power of sale

Holding

Once the statutory power of sale is legally activated and the transfer completed, the chargor's remedy lies only in damages against the person exercising the power.

Reasoning

Following Mwambeje Ranching Co. Ltd v Kenta National Capital Corporation, any anomaly in a sale under an activated statutory power of sale that prejudices the chargor is remediable with damages under section 99(4) of the Land Act. The appellant therefore could not challenge subsequent transfers by the 2nd respondent to third parties; its remedy, if any, lay in damages only against the 1st respondent.

p. 22
06

Whether the learned Judge's costs discretion was exercised judicially

Holding

The order that each party bear their own costs was proper since neither party wholly succeeded in the claim or counterclaim.

Reasoning

Costs follow the event, but the discretion is judicial and will not be disturbed if there are grounds supporting it. As neither the appellant nor the 1st respondent, who filed the counterclaim, wholly succeeded, neither could claim costs. The 1st respondent's counterclaim had been struck out as time barred.

p. 23

Legal principles established

#
  • A chargor's equity of redemption is extinguished at the fall of the hammer upon a valid sale by public auction in exercise of the statutory power of sale.
  • Once a statutory power of sale is legally activated, any anomaly in the sale which prejudices the rights of the chargor is remediable only with damages.
  • The Land Control Act consent requirement does not apply to land acquired by operation of law, such as through a sale by public auction in exercise of a statutory power of sale.
  • A mother title over subdivided land does not cease to exist until all the deed plans have been registered and their titles effectively produced.
  • An appellate court interferes with trial court findings of fact only where the trial court took into account matters it should not have, failed to take into account relevant matters, misapprehended the evidence, or acted on wrong principles.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the appeal
  2. 2.No order as to costs
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Mombasa
ELC Civil Suit No. 41 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Four Farms Limited v Agriculture Finance Corporation & 8 others", Case Analysis (2024). Court of Appeal appeal from ELC Civil Suit No. 41 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1802/eng@2024-12-20

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