Kiconco v Nile Bank Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 224 of 2005)
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
Held that the applicant's husband, as registered proprietor and director of the borrowing company, waived the benefit of the consent order by voluntarily withdrawing the caveat and authorising the sale before the deadline. This waiver settled the underlying dispute. The court declined to exercise its inherent powers to set aside the sale, finding no procedural injustice requiring remedy and noting that substantive claims under the Land Act required a full trial. Application dismissed with each party to bear own costs.
Outcome
Application to set aside mortgagee sale dismissed; sale and transfer to second respondent stands
Facts
In 1991, Kashojwa Farmers Ltd borrowed money from Nile Bank Limited, secured by land registered in the name of Sam Bakenzana, the company director and husband of the applicant. The company defaulted and by 2001 the debt was approximately Shs 14 million. The bank sold the land to the second respondent but the sale was initially set aside by Justice Kibuuka in 2004 for lack of notice. Following a fresh notice, the company obtained a consent order in November 2004 allowing four months (until 31 March 2005) to pay Shs 14,235,501, vacating the caveat Bakenzana had lodged. In February 2005, before the deadline, Bakenzana voluntarily withdrew the caveat and authorised the second respondent to be registered as proprietor. The applicant, who was not party to the earlier proceedings, then sought to set aside the sale, claiming it violated the consent order and the Land Act provisions on family land. Her husband filed an affidavit opposing her application, stating the family home was elsewhere and they had agreed to the sale.
Issues
- Whether the sale of mortgaged land was effected in disregard of a consent order that gave the mortgagor four months to pay the debt.
- Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to set aside the sale.
- Whether the sale contravened the Land Act provisions on family land requiring spousal consent.
- Whether the mortgagor's withdrawal of caveat and waiver of the remaining period validated the sale despite the consent order deadline.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (5)
- Bremer v South Indian Shipping Corporation Ltd [1981] 2 WLR 141 (HL)
- Baxi v Bank of India [1966] EA 130
- Iron & Steel Wares Ltd v C.W. Martyr & Co [1956] EACA 175
- Re Epicure Ltd [1960] EA 308
- Nile Bank v Sam Bakenzana (Miscellaneous Application No. 71 of 2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.