Thiongo v Chase Bank (In Liqudation) & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 371 of 2018) [2026] KEMC 186 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 186 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE NAKURU LAW COURTS ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE 371 OF 2018 PA NDEGE, SPM JUNE 26, 2026 BETWEEN JAMES FRANCIS MAINA THIONGO ................................................... PLAINTIFF AND CHASE BANK (IN LIQUDATION) ................................................ 1ST DEFENDANT SIMON GACHAGUA ...................................................................... 2ND DEFENDANT SBM BANK (K) LTD ....................................................................... 3RD DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. Through a Further Amended Plaint dated 13/09/2023, the plaintifi herein seeks the following orders: a. A declaration that the Plaintifi is not liable to pay the loan of Kshs. 345,000/-, interest and/or charges accruing thereon, any portion thereof and/or any other amount in respect thereof. b. An order directing the 3rd defendant to unconditionally release to the Plaintifi the original title deed in respect of the parcel of land known as Bahati/kabatini Block 1/1100 and to execute and deliver to the Plaintifi the Discharge of Charge and other necessary documents to facilitate a discharge of charge. c. Special Damages of Kshs. 455,415. d. Damages for detenue and/or unlawful detention of the original title deed for the subject land. e. Damages for mental anguish and psychological sufiering f. An order directing the 3rd Defending to facilitate and/or procure reversal of the Plaintifi’s name from the Credit Reference Bureau as a loan defaulter. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/186/eng@2026-06-26 1
page 1 of 3
g. Damages for wrongful, unprocedural and or unwarranted referral of the Plaintifi’s name to CRB h. Exemplary damages. i. j. Interest Costs of the suit, 2. The 3rd Defender being a successor to the 1st defendant opposed the suit through the Further Amended Defence dated 18/12/2023. The 2nd defendant did not participate in the hearing herein. 3. The plaintifi’s case is mainly as set out in his witness statement, the list of documents dated 29/07/2016 and the Further List of Documents. The plaintifi herein further testified on 28/08/2025, and was duly cross-examined thereafter on 02/10/2025. He further called a second witness, PW2, Bernard Mureithi. The 1st and 3rd Defendants jointly called 1 witness who also relied on his statement, and list of documents dated 18/12/2023. 4. At the close of hearing and submissions, I do agree with the 1st and 3rd defendants’ submissions that it is not disputed that the plaintifi borrowed Kshs. 345,000 from the 1st and 3rd Defendants and that the loan was disbursed and is secured by a charge over the suit property. Further, that the amount advanced to the plaintifi has not been repaid. What are mainly disputed are whether the plaintifi should repay the amount owed, whether there is a breach of contract and whether the plaintifi is entitled to the reliefs sought. 5. I do agree that the plaintifi’s case is mainly premised on the Indicative Term Sheet dated 01/09/2014 that references the proposals that the construction loan would be advanced to the members but would be remitted to Messrs. BM & Khans (EA) ltd and that the farm inputs comprising seeds etc. would be overseen by Messrs. Premier Seeds East Africa Ltd. As correctly submitted, the Indicative Term Sheet and Conditions exhibited herein as PEXH. NO 3 is not binding and hence unenforceable for having not been signed by any party. 6. As to whether there was a breach of any contract herein, the plaintifi alleges breach of contract by the 3rd defendant for unilaterally revising the terms of the contract by disbursing the loan to the 2nd defendant herein instead of B.M. & Khan’s (EA) Ltd. That the 2nd Defendant did not then construct the green house and that the plaintifi had to engage another person to do the construction. 7. On this, I find that the loan was in fact disbursed to the plaintifi who then transferred the money to account of one Dow Vet Agro Vet as confirmed in PEXH NO. 10. There was no evidence tendered to support the plaintifi’s claim that the 3rd defendant unilaterally did the transfer. I further do agree that there is no tripartite agreement exhibited showing an agreement between the Plaintifi, the defendants banks and the 2nd defendant. 8. The upshot is that I do find that the plaintifi’s case lacks merit for the above reasons and the plaintifi is therefore not entitled to the reliefs as he is still a debtor to the 3rd defendant. This suit is there for dismissed with costs to the 3rd defendant. DATED,SIGNED AND DATED AT NAKURU THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE,2026. ALOYCE-PETER-NDEGE SENIOR PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE In the presence of; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/186/eng@2026-06-26 2
page 2 of 3
Plaintifi’s Counsel: Gatonye 1st and 3rd Defendants’ Counsel: Kiplangat 2nd Defendant’s Counsel: n/a Plaintifi: n/a 2nd Defendant: n/a https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/186/eng@2026-06-26 3
page 3 of 3