Nyanja Holdings Limited has secured a major legal victory after the Court of Appeal allowed the long-running Karen land dispute to proceed to the Supreme Court, opening the door for what could become a landmark determination on fraudulent statutory land sales and property rights in Kenya.
The case revolves around the disputed 100-acre Karen property known as L.R. No. 7583/1, which had been used as security for a loan facility advanced by City Finance Limited, now Kingdom Bank, to Nyanja Holdings decades ago.
Senior Counsel Cecil Miller, appearing for the applicants, argued that the matter raises critical constitutional and public interest questions touching on whether banks can permanently transfer property through allegedly unlawful statutory sales while limiting victims only to damages.
In submissions before the court, Miller maintained that the appellate decision created what he described as a dangerous precedent where:
“A wrongdoer can ‘keep what they have wrongfully taken’ simply by paying for it.”
The applicants argued that despite the High Court previously finding that the loan had been overpaid and that the sale of the Karen land was unlawful, the Court of Appeal later overturned that decision and upheld the transfer of the property to Redmars Holdings Limited.
According to court records, the applicants maintained that the land had allegedly been sold through a private treaty at approximately Ksh 60 million despite claims that its value exceeded hundreds of millions of shillings.
Miller further argued that the dispute was not merely a private commercial disagreement but a case with far-reaching implications for borrowers, lenders and land purchasers across Kenya.
At the centre of the intended Supreme Court appeal were questions framed by the applicants, including:
“Whether, considering the root-of-title principle in the Dina Management case, an illegal exercise of the statutory power of sale can confer a good title to the purchaser and confine the chargor’s remedy to damages only.”
The applicants also questioned whether courts should remain restricted to awarding damages even where a sale is allegedly tainted by “fraud, collusion, illegality, or irregularity.”
During the proceedings, Miller strongly opposed attempts to block the matter from reaching the Supreme Court, insisting there were conflicting schools of thought within previous Court of Appeal decisions regarding the effect of unlawful statutory sales.
He argued that unless the Supreme Court settles the issue conclusively, uncertainty would continue affecting banking transactions, borrowers’ rights and land ownership disputes nationwide.
The respondents, however, opposed the application and urged the appellate court not to certify the matter for further appeal.
Lawyers for the respondents argued that the dispute was a private commercial matter that did not transcend the interests of the parties involved. They further maintained that the law regarding statutory sales was already settled and that once a valid sale occurs, the chargor’s equity of redemption is extinguished.
The respondents also opposed preservation orders over the Karen property, arguing that the Court of Appeal had already concluded the substantive appeal and had therefore become functus officio on issues relating to the land itself.
But in its ruling delivered on May 8, 2026, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the issues raised by the applicants touched on broader legal questions surrounding statutory power of sale, fraudulent transfers and the remedies available to borrowers.
The court stated:
“The questions raised in the interplay between the existing jurisprudence and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Dina Management case… are of general public importance.”
The judges further held that the issues extended beyond the interests of the parties before court and were significant to borrowers, financial institutions exercising statutory power of sale and potential purchasers relying on titles obtained through such sales.
While the court declined to issue preservation orders over the Karen property pending the intended appeal, it ultimately allowed the applicants to move to the Supreme Court.
The ruling now sets the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Supreme Court battles on land rights, banking law and statutory sales in Kenya’s recent legal history.
