Nyandoro & 2 others v Focus Homes Ltd & 2 others (Land Case E063 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3887 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Buyers of charged Kenyan property lost their bid to stop a bank auction because they never obtained a partial discharge of the charge before purchasing.
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 Plaintiffs have met the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with the suit apartments
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction against exercise of the chargee's statutory power of sale
They did not; the apartments were purchased subject to an existing charge and the court in HCCC 373 OF 2018 had already allowed sale, a decision not set aside
The court applied Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. Because the Plaintiffs bought the apartments after the land was charged, and the 1st Defendant admitted indebtedness, the 2nd Defendant's statutory power of sale had crystallised on default. Further, the prior judgment in HCCC 373 OF 2018 permitting sale remained undisturbed, so the Plaintiffs could not show a right at stake warranting interruption of the chargee's remedy.
Whether the other Giella limbs (irreparable harm, balance of convenience) required determination
No; they were not considered because the Plaintiffs failed on the first limb
Relying on Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held that where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience need not be considered. The application was therefore determined solely on the first limb and dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- A purchaser who buys property subject to an existing charge should first seek partial discharge of the charge in respect of the specific property before purchase
- A chargee is entitled to exercise its statutory power of sale upon default even against apartments sold to third parties, where the charge remains undischarged
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 20th February 2026 is unmerited and is disallowed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2026 in a pending suit (no specific constitutional/statutory provision cited)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from auctioning, selling, transferring or disposing of the suit apartments pending the hearing and determination of the suit
The Plaintiffs purchased the apartments when the land was already charged to the 2nd Defendant, the 1st Defendant admitted indebtedness, and HCCC 373 OF 2018 already allowed the 2nd Defendant to exercise its statutory power of sale; no prima facie case established
Consideration of irreparable harm and balance of convenience
Where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, the other Giella limbs need no consideration per Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielsen
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
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.
In the circumstances, I find the Notice of Motion application dated the 20th February 2026 unmerited and will disallow it.
Each party to bear their own costs.
In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiffs have not established a prima case to warrant the orders of interlocutory injunction as sought.
since the suit apartments were Charged, the 2nd Defendant was entitled to exercise its statutory power of sale in case of default, which is the position herein.
the Plaintiffs should have first sought for partial discharge of Charge for each of the suit apartments, before purchase, but there is no indication they did so.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternates between describing the Plaintiffs' occupation as twelve (12) and ten (10) years
The suit property's land reference is inconsistently given as 13/369 and 37/369
The caption/heading of the case and case number do not appear in the provided text
The 2nd Defendant's res judicata submission appears incomplete in the text, with the referenced case number dropped mid-sentence
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyandoro & 2 others v Focus Homes Ltd & 2 others (Land Case E063 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3887 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3887/eng@2026-06-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.