Behind the Headlines: The Encumbered Property Fiasco at Greatwall Apartments, Athi River, Kenya
Purchasers of 100 units at Greatwall Apartments in Athi River, Kenya, have lost their investments due to buying encumbered units. Erdemann Properties Limited sought a temporary injunction in the High Court and the Court of Appeal to prevent KCB Bank from selling the charged apartments at a public auction to recover the debt owed to it. However, both courts denied the request and refused to classify the third-party buyers as “innocent purchasers for value.” Consequently, KCB is authorized to exercise its statutory power of sale.
The Erdemann case parallels the landmark cases of Torino Enterprises Ltd vs. Attorney General (SC Petition No.5 (E0060) of 2022) and Dina Management Limited vs. The County Government of Mombasa & 5 Others (Petition 8 (E010) of 2021). These cases established that purchasers must conduct thorough due diligence (#BuyerBeAware) to identify all encumbrances on the title and ensure they obtain a valid property title. With many Kenyans viewing engaging qualified advocates as an unnecessary expense, such unfortunate situations are likely to increase.
Trial Court: In Brief
Application for a Temporary Injunction in Civil Suit E209 of 2022 Between Erdemann Properties Limited v. KCB Bank Limited
On June 6, 2022, Erdemann Properties Limited filed a Notice of Motion in the High Court of Kenya seeking a temporary injunction to prevent KCB Bank Limited from selling 100 apartment units at a public auction pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Erdemann, a real estate developer, had obtained loans totaling Kshs. 1.84 billion from KCB to finance the construction of 2,190 apartment units on land registered as LR No 27317/2. The security for these loans included a legal charge over properties Title No. IR 202852 LR 209/22016 and a deed of assignment of project receivables.
Erdemann met its loan repayment obligations until March 12, 2020, when its operations were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The loans were restructured, with further securities including a legal charge of Ksh. 425,750,000 on 100 unsold units on LR No 27317/2. Despite this, Erdemann sold the charged units to unsuspecting purchasers, contrary to the terms of the charge, which required all proceeds from sales to be deposited into a designated escrow account.
In its Notice of Motion, Erdemann argued that KCB’s statutory notices to sell the 100 units, despite their sale to innocent purchasers, would defeat the purchasers’ rights. Erdemann offered alternative security to KCB, asserting it was fair to nullify the charge on the 100 units for the benefit of the innocent purchasers.
KCB contended that Erdemann breached the charge terms by selling the 100 units without consent and failing to deposit proceeds into the escrow account. Thus, the sale was unlawful, and the purchasers did not qualify as innocent purchasers for value. KCB argued it had the right to exercise the power of sale due to Erdemann’s loan default, amounting to Kshs. 2 billion.
The Court’s Determination
The Court’s primary consideration was whether Erdemann had established a case for a temporary injunction, guided by the principles in Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358:
- The applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- An interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable harm not adequately compensated by damages.
- If in doubt, the court will decide on the balance of convenience.
The Court found Erdemann failed to remit sales proceeds to KCB or the escrow account. It ruled Erdemann had not shown a prima facie case with a probability of success and that any harm could be compensated by damages. The application for a temporary injunction was dismissed with costs to KCB. Erdemann appealed the decision.
Civil Application No. E042 of 2024 Between Erdemann Properties Limited v. KCB Bank Limited at the Court of Appeal
Erdemann’s appeal centered on the argument that purchasers of the 100 units and 281 off-plan units were innocent purchasers for value, and KCB’s intended sale was illegal. The Court of Appeal determined whether a temporary injunction should be issued pending the appeal.
The Court stated that for a temporary injunction to succeed, the appeal must be arguable and not frivolous, and the injunction must prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory. The Court found the appeal arguable but not likely to be rendered nugatory, as the respondent could compensate the applicant. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs to KCB.
Conclusion
Both superior courts did not declare the purchasers of the encumbered units as innocent purchasers for value. Therefore, KCB Bank is free to exercise its statutory power of sale to recover Erdemann Properties Limited’s debt. These purchasers may either vacate the apartments or repurchase them from KCB Bank, resulting in a significant loss.
All purchasers in real estate transactions should conduct thorough due diligence through their advocates to ensure the property is free from encumbrances. Precedents set by the Torino case and the Dina Management case place the burden of proving the legality and validity of the title on the purchasers (#BuyerBeAware). Engaging experts such as advocates can prevent losing investments to fraudsters and creditors.
At WKA Advocates, our dedicated Real Estate, Conveyancing, and Construction Law department is here to assist with due diligence and legal support. For any property-related interests, contact us for thorough assistance.
For further information or legal assistance, please contact us at info@wka.co.ke, visit wakilihub.co.ke/, or call +254 798 03 580. Our Nairobi Hub is located at Parklands, Valley View Business Park, 6th Floor, City Park Drive, Off Limuru Road.
Authors:
- William Karoki, Founding Partner
- Florence Mwende, Associate
- Erick Karangatha, Candidate Attorney