Cytonn Investment Partners Sixteen LLP & another v Official Receiver (Civil Appeal E836 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1954 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that liquidation courts can evict occupants from a company's property without the usual three-month eviction notice.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter
- 2.Whether the procedural safeguards for evidence were adhered to
- 3.What was intended by the Court of Appeal's order of 27th December 2023
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the High Court over eviction orders sought in the course of liquidation
The trial court had jurisdiction. The proceedings were initiated as insolvency proceedings; the vesting order and consequent eviction orders flowed from the Insolvency Act under which the High Court has jurisdiction. The predominant issue was the liquidation, not the land dispute.
The Court applied the predominant (dominant issue) test recognised in Co-operative Bank of Kenya v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna and Pumwani Riyadha Mosque Committee. Because the eviction orders were consequential upon the vesting orders made in exercise of the High Court's insolvency jurisdiction under the Insolvency Act, the fact that the subject property was land did not divest the High Court of jurisdiction or confer exclusive jurisdiction on the ELC.
Whether the statutory eviction notice safeguards (sections 152B, 152E, 152G of the Land Act) applied
They did not apply, as the dispute before the court was not a suit challenging an eviction by a landowner but an appeal against a decision enforcing the court's own status quo orders against a disobedient party.
Section 152E applies where the owner of private land intends to evict an unlawful occupant. Here the Official Receiver was executing court orders, and the appellants were alleged to have forcibly re-entered in breach of the status quo direction. The Court held that requiring a three-month notice in such circumstances would render court proceedings and orders a circus; moreover the trial judge had left the notice issue to be canvassed substantively in the proceedings challenging the vesting orders.
The meaning and effect of the Court of Appeal's direction of 27th December 2023 that status quo be maintained
The direction preserved the position as at the moment it was made - the Official Receiver was already in possession - and halted only future execution of the vesting orders; it did not reverse actions already taken.
The Court of Appeal found, on the transcript of the proceedings of 27th December 2023, that the Official Receiver was in possession at 11:33am when directions were issued. The trial judge's interpretation - that everything transpired up to that moment was to remain and only future execution was halted - accorded with the actual order, which barred 'no further execution of the Ruling/Order of the High Court dated 30th November 2023'.
Legal principles established
#- Consequential orders arising from a vesting order in insolvency proceedings cannot be the basis for determining jurisdiction, because they are not the predominant issues in dispute; the High Court as the insolvency court retains jurisdiction over matters incidental to a liquidation, including repossession of land vesting in the liquidator.
- The three-month eviction notice requirements under the Land Act (sections 152B, 152E and 152G) do not apply where a court is enforcing or implementing its own orders that a party has allegedly disobeyed.
- A status quo order fixes the state of affairs at the moment it is issued: everything that has already transpired is left intact, and only future action is halted.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Not stated (arising from Insolvency Petition No. E063 of 2021 and related application dated 19th June 2024)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court ruling; jurisdictional question framed around Article 162(2) and Article 165 of the Constitution, the Environment and Land Court Act and the Insolvency Act
Relief refused
#Setting aside the trial court's interim eviction and repossession orders in favour of the Official Receiver
The appeal lacked merit on all three issues framed; the trial court had jurisdiction under the predominant test, the statutory eviction notice provisions did not apply to enforcement of court orders, and the trial court correctly interpreted the Court of Appeal's status quo direction
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The intertwining jurisdiction between the High Court under Article 165 of the Constitution and the specialized courts under Article 162 of the Constitution remains a live controversy within our jurisprudential sphere.
Such consequential orders, in our view, cannot be the basis upon which the issue of jurisdiction would be determined since they were not the predominant issues in dispute in the insolvency proceedings.
If every time a person disobeys a court order by entering upon a land where he has been removed in execution of a court order, a three months’ notice would be required, court proceedings and orders would become a circus.
Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal which we dismiss with costs to the respondent.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment at one point refers to the Court of Appeal directions of 27th December 2023 as being of '27th December 2024' in the grounds of appeal, an apparent typographical date inconsistency.
The judgment does not state the appeal number under which it was decided, nor the precise case number of the High Court ruling appealed from, only the related Civil Application No. E615/2023 and Insolvency Petition No. E063 of 2021.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cytonn Investment Partners Sixteen LLP & another v Official Receiver (Civil Appeal E836 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1954 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not separately stated in the judgment (appeal from ruling of F. Mugambi, J. delivered 26th July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1954/eng@2025-11-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.