Ardhilink Limited v Equity Bank Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3750 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a borrower's auction challenge, confirming debt-recovery disputes belong in the High Court, not the ELC.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a dispute centered on the exercise of a chargee's Statutory Power of Sale
- 2.If jurisdiction exists, whether the Applicant has satisfied the sequential judicial hurdles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over disputes on exercise of Statutory Power of Sale
The Preliminary Objection was upheld; the ELC lacks jurisdiction where the substratum is debt recovery under a charge
The Court applied Co-operative Bank of Kenya v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna and Thomas Mutuku Kasue, holding that although land is the security, the cause of action is recovery of a debt and tabulation of sums owing, a commercial dispute for the High Court. The Applicant did not challenge the validity of the charge, only notices and the loan balance.
Whether the Applicant met the Giella test for interlocutory injunction
Even assuming jurisdiction, the Applicant failed the test - no prima facie case and damages an adequate remedy
The Respondents exhibited certificates of postage, statutory notices and a valuation report by Topmark Valuers; the Applicant's assertions were bare denials. Land charged as security for a commercial loan is a commodity whose loss is compensable in damages, so no irreparable injury was shown.
Legal principles established
#- Where the predominant issue in a suit is the exercise of a chargee's Statutory Power of Sale to recover a debt, jurisdiction vests in the High Court, not the Environment and Land Court
- A court can only exercise jurisdiction conferred on it by the Constitution or statute
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 28/03/2025 is hereby upheld.
- 2.This Court downs its tools for lack of jurisdiction.
- 3.The Plaint dated 18/02/2025 is hereby struck out.
- 4.The Application dated 18/02/2025 is hereby dismissed.
- 5.Costs of the suit and the application are awarded to the Defendants/Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (jurisdiction challenged and found wanting)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from selling by public auction the three suit properties
Court found it lacked jurisdiction; alternatively the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case and damages would be an adequate remedy
Temporary injunction restraining dealing with the charged properties pending hearing of the main suit
Plaint struck out and application dismissed upon upholding the Preliminary Objection on jurisdiction
Costs
Costs of the suit and the application are awarded to the Defendants/Respondents.
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 Preliminary Objection dated 28/03/2025 is hereby upheld.
This Court downs its tools for lack of jurisdiction.
The Plaint dated 18/02/2025 is hereby struck out.
Costs of the suit and the application are awarded to the Defendants/Respondents.
The predominant issue herein is the recovery of a debt and the procedural regularity of a Statutory Sale, which falls within the Commercial jurisdiction of the High Court, not the specialized ELC.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistencies: the Replying Affidavit and Defendants' submissions are dated 30/04/2026 but submissions supporting the Preliminary Objection dated 30/05/2025; the auction was allegedly scheduled for 2/02/2025 in one place and 21st February 2025 in the notice of motion
Chronology anomaly: submissions were directed to be filed from 19/03/2026 though the application is dated 18/02/2025 and objection 28/03/2025, and the judgment is dated 15/06/2026
The loan balance figures conflict: Applicant deposes to a balance of Kshs. 15,857,000 while Respondents state the outstanding debt was Kshs. 18,011,937.08 - though this is a factual dispute between parties rather than an internal contradiction of the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ardhilink Limited v Equity Bank Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3750 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided (Application and Plaint dated 18/02/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3750/eng@2026-06-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.