Background and Introduction
1. The Originating Summons dated 24th November 2025 was brought under Sections 90, 97, 98, 100(1) and 104 of the Land Act Cap 6 of 2012, Section 75 of the Land Registration (General Regulations), Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 37 Rules 4 & 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
2. The Applicant seeks leave of this Honourable Court to purchase the charged property by way of public auction. Despite service of the application, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service sworn by Morris Kigera on 6th May 2026, the Respondent has not filed any response. The application is therefore unopposed. Nonetheless, this Court is duty-bound to interrogate the veracity of the evidence presented before granting the orders sought.
3. The Applicant Bank avers that, pursuant to a Letter of Offer dated 19th May 2014, it extended a term loan facility of Kes. 300,000,000.00 to the Defendant. The facility was secured by a Legal Charge dated 6th June 2014 over property known as L.R. No. 1870/IV/175, situate on Pilipili Way, Off Raphta Road, Westlands, Nairobi (hereinafter “the Charged Property”).
4. The Defendant defaulted in repayment obligations in 2016. As at 23rd September 2016, arrears stood at Kes. 338,684,605.73, prompting the Plaintiff to exercise its statutory power of sale. Statutory notices were duly issued through Philip Muoka & Company Advocates, and Keysian Auctioneers were instructed to advertise the property for sale.
5. Despite service of statutory and redemption notices, the Defendant neither rectified the default nor responded. A valuation was conducted, assessing the forced sale value at Kes. 195,000,000.00. Several attempts at sale by public auction were undertaken but proved unsuccessful:
i. 19 February 2020: Injunctive orders restrained the sale; injunction was later dismissed on 17th April 2020.
ii. 13 July 2021: Auction fetched Kes. 105,000,000.00, below forced sale value.
iii. 28 September 2021: Advertised in Daily Nation; no bids received.
iv. 14 June 2022: Highest bid Kes. 140,000,000.00, below forced sale value.
v. 6 December 2022: Auction attracted no bids despite extensive advertising.
6. Having exhausted multiple attempts, the Plaintiff now seeks leave to purchase the Charged Property at Kes. 195,000,000.00, being the forced sale value as at 25th August 2025. This offer is superior to all prior bids and is presented as protective of both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s interests.
Analysis and Determination
7. Section 100 of the Land Act permits a chargee, with leave of the Court, to purchase charged property at a public auction. Leave shall only be granted where the chargee demonstrates that such purchase is the most advantageous method of sale, consistent with the duty under Section 97(1) to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable.
8. Section 100 further provides that where the property is sold by public auction, the chargee may bid provided the bid equals or exceeds the highest bid or the reserve price, whichever is greater.
9. It is undisputed that the Defendant is in default of the loan facility. The Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements, including issuance of notices and commissioning of a valuation. Multiple auctions have failed to yield bids meeting or exceeding the forced sale value. Proceeding with sales at lower bids would contravene Section 97 and prejudice the Defendant.
10. The Plaintiff’s offer to purchase the property at Kes. 195,000,000.00, being the forced sale value, is consistent with statutory obligations and ensures fairness to both parties. The Court is persuaded that this is the most advantageous method of sale in the circumstances.
11. The Plaintiff has relied on persuasive authorities, including Ecobank Kenya Limited v Moru Ridge Limited Commercial Case E137 of 2018 and Ecobank Kenya Limited v First Choice Mega Stores Limited Commercial Case No. 20 of 2017 which affirm the principle that a chargee may, with leave of the Court, purchase charged property where repeated auctions have failed to secure a fair price.
Disposition
12. Having considered the application, the supporting affidavit, statutory provisions, and authorities cited, the Court finds merit in the application. Leave is hereby granted to the Plaintiff to purchase the Charged Property, L.R. No. 1870/IV/175, by way of public auction at the forced sale value of Kes. 195,000,000.00. I make no orders as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 11th DAY OF MAY 2026.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
1. The Originating Summons dated 24th November 2025 was brought under Sections 90, 97, 98, 100(1) and 104 of the Land Act Cap 6 of 2012, Section 75 of the Land Registration (General Regulations), Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 37 Rules 4 & 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
2. The Applicant seeks leave of this Honourable Court to purchase the charged property by way of public auction. Despite service of the application, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service sworn by Morris Kigera on 6th May 2026, the Respondent has not filed any response. The application is therefore unopposed. Nonetheless, this Court is duty-bound to interrogate the veracity of the evidence presented before granting the orders sought.
3. The Applicant Bank avers that, pursuant to a Letter of Offer dated 19th May 2014, it extended a term loan facility of Kes. 300,000,000.00 to the Defendant. The facility was secured by a Legal Charge dated 6th June 2014 over property known as L.R. No. 1870/IV/175, situate on Pilipili Way, Off Raphta Road, Westlands, Nairobi (hereinafter “the Charged Property”).
4. The Defendant defaulted in repayment obligations in 2016. As at 23rd September 2016, arrears stood at Kes. 338,684,605.73, prompting the Plaintiff to exercise its statutory power of sale. Statutory notices were duly issued through Philip Muoka & Company Advocates, and Keysian Auctioneers were instructed to advertise the property for sale.
5. Despite service of statutory and redemption notices, the Defendant neither rectified the default nor responded. A valuation was conducted, assessing the forced sale value at Kes. 195,000,000.00. Several attempts at sale by public auction were undertaken but proved unsuccessful:
i. 19 February 2020: Injunctive orders restrained the sale; injunction was later dismissed on 17th April 2020.
ii. 13 July 2021: Auction fetched Kes. 105,000,000.00, below forced sale value.
iii. 28 September 2021: Advertised in Daily Nation; no bids received.
iv. 14 June 2022: Highest bid Kes. 140,000,000.00, below forced sale value.
v. 6 December 2022: Auction attracted no bids despite extensive advertising.
6. Having exhausted multiple attempts, the Plaintiff now seeks leave to purchase the Charged Property at Kes. 195,000,000.00, being the forced sale value as at 25th August 2025. This offer is superior to all prior bids and is presented as protective of both the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s interests.
Analysis and Determination
7. Section 100 of the Land Act permits a chargee, with leave of the Court, to purchase charged property at a public auction. Leave shall only be granted where the chargee demonstrates that such purchase is the most advantageous method of sale, consistent with the duty under Section 97(1) to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable.
8. Section 100 further provides that where the property is sold by public auction, the chargee may bid provided the bid equals or exceeds the highest bid or the reserve price, whichever is greater.
9. It is undisputed that the Defendant is in default of the loan facility. The Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements, including issuance of notices and commissioning of a valuation. Multiple auctions have failed to yield bids meeting or exceeding the forced sale value. Proceeding with sales at lower bids would contravene Section 97 and prejudice the Defendant.
10. The Plaintiff’s offer to purchase the property at Kes. 195,000,000.00, being the forced sale value, is consistent with statutory obligations and ensures fairness to both parties. The Court is persuaded that this is the most advantageous method of sale in the circumstances.
11. The Plaintiff has relied on persuasive authorities, including Ecobank Kenya Limited v Moru Ridge Limited Commercial Case E137 of 2018 and Ecobank Kenya Limited v First Choice Mega Stores Limited Commercial Case No. 20 of 2017 which affirm the principle that a chargee may, with leave of the Court, purchase charged property where repeated auctions have failed to secure a fair price.
Disposition
12. Having considered the application, the supporting affidavit, statutory provisions, and authorities cited, the Court finds merit in the application. Leave is hereby granted to the Plaintiff to purchase the Charged Property, L.R. No. 1870/IV/175, by way of public auction at the forced sale value of Kes. 195,000,000.00. I make no orders as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 11th DAY OF MAY 2026.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE