K2 International Solutions Pte Limited v Great Lakes Coffee Company - In Receivership and Another (Originating Summons No. 7 of 2023)
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 court held that legal title in 117 tons of coffee did not pass to the purchaser because the seller's stock was held under binding collateral management and loan facility agreements that created prior interests in favour of the bank. The seller could not independently transfer title outside the confines of these pre-existing covenants, which held the stock in trust for the bank and prescribed how sales to off-takers were to be managed. The purported sale was in breach of existing agreements. The plaintiff's application for possession was dismissed.
Outcome
Plaintiff denied possession of coffee stock; suit dismissed
Facts
K2 International Solutions purchased 117,720 kg of coffee from Great Lakes Coffee Company between December 2022 and February 2023, paying the full purchase price. Before delivery could be made, Great Lakes was placed under provisional administration in March 2023. Bank of Africa, which had provided revolving credit facilities to Great Lakes secured by a floating charge and collateral management agreement over all coffee stock, appointed receivers. The bank had issued a demand for USD 4,300,943 in October 2022 following default. The coffee stock was held under a collateral management agreement requiring all stock to be held in trust for the bank, with specific procedures for sales to off-takers and channelling of proceeds through the bank. K2 sought possession of the coffee it had paid for, but the receivers declined to hand it over, stating the stock was held under crystallised security.
Issues
- Whether the legal title and property in the 117 tons of coffee passed to the Plaintiff before crystallization of the floating charge executed in favour of the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant over all its stock for purposes of taking possession of the said goods.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the 117 tons of coffee in the 1st Defendant's warehouse which is under the management of receivers appointed by the 2nd Defendant.
- Whether the Defendants should pay the costs of the suit.
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018 s.2
- Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018 s.26
- Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018 s.22
- Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 2018 s.23
- Companies Act 2012 s.105
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I No.71-1 Order 37 Rule 1(f)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I No.71-1 Order 37 Rule 8
Cases cited (5)
- Haul Mart Kenya Ltd v Tata Africa Holdings (Kenya) Ltd [2017] eKLR
- Agnew & Anor v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (2001) 2 AC 710
- Re Keenan Brothers Ltd (1986) BCLC 242
- Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd [1903] 2 Ch D 284
- Bank of India (U) Ltd v NIC and URA (High Court Civil Suit No. 9 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.