Barclays Bank of (U) Limited v Katende (Civil Appeal 22 of 1993)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Supreme Court allowed the Bank's appeal and set aside a temporary injunction restraining it from selling mortgaged property. Where the mortgage agreement and section 9 of the Mortgage Decree No. 17 of 1974 expressly empower the mortgagee to sell by public auction without applying to court, the mortgagee may do so once demand has been made and the mortgagor or principal debtor has defaulted. A principle of natural justice cannot override an express legislative provision, so the contractually agreed sale without recourse to court is lawful. The mortgagor therefore showed no prima facie case with a probability of success and no irreparable injury, and the conditions in Giella v Cassman Brown for a temporary injunction were not met.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; the High Court's temporary injunction and orders set aside, leaving the Bank free to exercise its power of sale.
Facts
The respondent guaranteed a debt owed to the appellant Bank by Bearing Machinery Equipment Ltd and, as security, mortgaged his own property. The mortgage agreement provided that on demand and default the Bank could sell the property by public auction without notice to or concurrence of the mortgagor and without recourse to the court. Bearing Machinery defaulted in payment, and the Bank looked to the respondent as guarantor; the sum guaranteed was substantial and largely outstanding. The respondent, claiming he had been unaware of the default and had not been served with a demand notice, discovered his property advertised for sale and began paying monthly instalments, repaying only a small portion. He sued the Bank seeking a declaration that the proposed sale was illegal, an injunction restraining the sale, and leave to pay the debt by instalments. The trial judge granted a temporary injunction, reasoning that sale without recourse to court ousted the court's jurisdiction and offended natural justice. The Bank appealed.
Issues
- Whether a mortgagee with an express contractual and statutory power of sale may sell the mortgaged property by public auction without recourse to court.
- Whether such a power of sale without recourse to court violates the principle of natural justice.
- Whether the mortgagor established the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the sale.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Orders of the High Court set aside.
- Costs of the appeal and of the application in the High Court awarded to the appellant Bank.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Mortgage Decree No. 17 of 1974 s.9
- Mortgage Decree No. 17 of 1974 s.7
- Registration of Titles Act
Cases cited (1)
- Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.