SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

HFC Limited v Kampala International University & 11 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E409 of 2022) [2023] KECA 159 (KLR) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KECA 159 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
159
Citation
[2023] KECA 159 (KLR)
Decided
17 February 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a Ruling and Order of the Environment and Land CourtCoramJUDGE OF APPEAL, Mboya, WK KORIR
Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ruling of the Environment and Land Court that the respondents did not have a reasonable cause of action and that the applicant's remedy under section 90 of the Land Act was sufficient.

Facts

HFC Limited extended a loan to Kampala International University and its 11 other respondents. The loan was secured by a charge on the property, but the respondents allegedly transferred and subdivided the property without HFC's knowledge.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents' actions constitute illegal, fraudulent, and unprocedural transfers and subdivisions of the property.
  2. Whether the applicant's remedy under section 90 of the Land Act is sufficient to prevent irreparable loss.

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal found that the respondents did not have a contract with the applicant and that the applicant's remedy under section 90 of the Land Act was sufficient to prevent irreparable loss.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The respondents' actions were found to be illegal, fraudulent, and unprocedural.
  • The applicant's remedy under section 90 of the Land Act was found to be sufficient to prevent irreparable loss.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Act
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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case