Investments v Mahadi & another (Civil Appeal 155 of 2018) [2022] KECA 142 (KLR) (18 February 2022) (Judgment)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 142
- Citation
- [2022] KECA 142 (KLR)
- Decided
- 18 February 2022
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a High Court judgmentCoramHA OMONDI
Holding
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the appellant.
Facts
Garam Investments challenged the amounts awarded as its professional charges by the High Court. The 1st respondent, Ibrahim Hussein Mahadi, defaulted on a loan secured by a property, leading to a sale initiated by Gulf African Bank. The appellant, Garam Investments, sought to charge fees under different bands of the Fourth Schedule to the Auctioneers Act.
Issues
- Whether an auctioneer can charge fees under the different bands set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Auctioneers Act.
- Whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of the Fourth Schedule to the Auctioneers Act.
Reasoning
The Court of Appeal held that an auctioneer must identify the reserve price and place himself in one applicable band and rate, and not all of them. This would amount to unjust enrichment or double charging.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Auctioneers Act
- Court of Appeal Rules
Cases cited (1)
- Alimex Limited
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…