7.In her evidence before this Court, the Plaintiff reiterated that he recieved a notification of sale of the suit property on 19th May, 2021 indicating that the property would be sold on 30th July, through a Public Auction.
8.She stated that her late husband took a loan with the 1st Defendant in 1983 and passed on in 2014. She pleads ignorance of the financial transaction and in particular how the loan accumulated interests to reach Kshs. 12,976,380.
9.She claims that some people visited her home in 2020 informing her that the property was to be auctioned due to some loan taken by her late husband and that another auctioneer went back in 2021 in an attempt to auction the said property.
10.She conceded that she was yet to file succession proceeding with respect to the estate of her deceased husband but insisted that the suit properly is an ancestral land where she lives with her parents.
11.She pleaded with this Court stating that the amount demanded by the bank is too huge making it unpayable.
12.She doubled if her late husband ever got statutory notices or any communication pointing out that the Postal Address used to send letters by the Defendants was wrong and denied ever receiving any communication from them regarding the suit property.
13.The Plaintiff submits that the 1st Defendant is in violation of the In Duplum Rule contemplated under Section 44 A of the Banking Act as the loan is said to have accrued an interest to the tune of Kshs 12,976,380/- The plaintiff has cited the case of Ann Mugure & 2 Others vs Higher Education Loans Board (2022) Where the Court declared that the in duplum rule was applicable to HELB in relation to payment of loans advanced by the institution and that the institution was not entitled to recover from the petitioners or its loanees an amount exceeding double the amount advanced to them.
14.With regards to the application of the rule, the Plaintiff has cited the cases of Kenya Hotels Limited vs Oriental Commercial Bank Limited (formerly known as Depphis Bank Limited) (2019) eKLR and Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited vs Scholastica Nyaguthii Muturi & Anor (2020) eKLR where the it was reiterated that an institution is limited in what it may recover with respect to a non performing loan, the principal owing when the loan becomes non-performing; interest, in accordance with the contract between the debtor and the institution, not exceeding the principal owing when the loan becomes non performing; and expenses incurred in the recovery of any amounts owed by the debtor.
15.The Plaintiff also submits that the 1st Defendant is in violation of legal procedure in recovery of the security as she did not receive statutory notices from the institution. That the deceased provided the institution with his postal address as being P.O Box number 716-Kitui in 1983 but the notices exhibited by the 1st Defendant showed that the notices were sent to an incorrect postal address of P.O Box 335-Kitui.
16.The defence on their part called one Dr. Peter Kitonyo who testified on behalf of the 1st Defendant. He stated that he worked with the Central Bank and that he was the 1st Defendant’s liquidator agent. He adopted his witness statement and list of documents as his evidence in chief. He also stated that the plaintiff’s husband applied for a loan of Kshs 100,000/- which was granted by the 1st Defendant in 1983. That the loan was to be repaid in twelve months but he defaulted in repayment and the deceased explained the default by stating that thieves that broken into his shop and stole his stock which affected his business. That the deceased charged the suit property as security for his loan. He also stated that there was a time when the Plaintiff approached the bank and requested to repay the Kshs 100,000/- which the bank refused. That she later proposed making a payment of Kshs 140,000/- which was also declined. He also stated that the 1st Defendant bank collapsed in 1984, two years after the deceased tookthe loan and that it is currently on liquidation. In cross examination, he testified that they issued statutory notices dated 25th March 2019 and 23rd September 2019 to the deceased as well as demand letters dated 23rd October 1984 and 20th March 1987 to the advocate of the deceased, Malonza & Company Advocates. The witness acknowledged that the postal address on the statutory notices cited as to belong to the deceased was incorrect but stated that they communicated with his advocate. He also stated that the liquidator had attempted to exercise its statutory power of sale but the Plaintiff obtained court orders restricting the same in 1992.
17.The liquidator added that the Security given for the loan was in the name of the borrower adding that the lender had no information that the parcel was a fairly land. He testified that the borrower never made any repayment adding that, the loan was to be repaid in 12 months’ time from the date of disbursement which he stated was 11th October, 1983.According to him, the loan was to be repaid in full by October, 1984.He stated that their attempt to sell the suit property was stopped when the Plaintiff moved to Court.
18.The 1st Defendant submits that the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to bring this suit as she has not taken out a limited grant to enable her file the suit as such, it should be struck out. The 1st Defendant has cited the case of Hawo Shanko vs Mohamed Uta Shanko (2018) eKLR where the court held that party needed to take out a limited grant to appear in cases involving a deceased person’s estate.
19.The 1st Defendant further submits that the suit is defective as the Plaintiff failed to seek leave prior to filing knowing that the 1st Defendant was under liquidation. The 1st Defendant submits that this was in violation of Section 56(2) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act. The 1st Defendant has cited the cases of Bisai & Another vs Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Others 2 (EA) where it was held as follows;
20.The 1st Defendant has also relied on the case of Joseph Kaara Mwethaga vs Thabiti Finance Company Limited & Others (1998) eKLR where the court held that leave before instituting a suit against a company undergoing involuntary liquidation was mandatory.
21.It also submits that the Plaintiff’s husband took out a loan which he was obligated to pay adding that spousal consent was not required at the time of taking the loan as the loan was taken before Enactment of the Land Act 2012. In this regard, 1st Defendant has cited the case of Stella Mokeira Matara vs Thaddeus Mose Mangenya & Anor (2016) eKLR where the Court of Appeal had been asked to determine spousal rights over matrimonial property, specially, the requirement of spousal consent on a charge over matrimonial property. The issue in contention was that the charge in issue was drawn and executed before the Land Act 2012 and the Land Registration Act, 2012 which provided for spousal consent. The Appeal was on at an interlocutory stage and but even then the Court of Appeal held that it could not fault the decision of the Learned Judge who held that parties executing charges prior to the commencement of the Act could not be expected to comply with nonexistence requirement of law.
22.On issuance of notices, the 1st Defendant submits that it sent all statutory notices to the deceased through his advocate. It has cited the case of Beatrice Atieno Onyango v Housing Finance Company Limited & 3 others  eKLR where the court found that statutory notices had been serve particularly because the Plaintiff made an admission of receiving the same in an email sent to the financial institution.
23.This case revolves around a loan of Kshs 100,000/- issued to the husband of the Plaintiff (now deceased) by the 1st Defendant in 1983. The repayment period for the loan was 12 months and the suit property was charged as a security of the loan. The Plaintiff has not disputed the existence of the loan. Her contention lies on the interest amount being claimed by the 1st Defendant of Kshs 12,976,380/-. It has also been brought to the attention of the court that the Plaintiff’s husband died 2014 while the 1st Defendant went into liquidation in 1984. The Plaintiff’s case is that the 1st Defendant is in violation of the in duplum rule and further, that they were not issued with statutory notices prior to the 1st Defendant excising its statutory power of sale because the letters or notices went to the wrong address.
24.The 1st Defendant’s case is that the suit should be struck out because firstly, the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute it, secondly that leave was not sought before it was instituted, that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case and that the institution issued the requisite statutory notices to the Plaintiff’s husband. The issue of the in duplum rule was not pleaded by the Plaintiff in her plaint and was only brought out in her submissions.
25.The issues for determination in my opinion are therefore;i.Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suitii.Whether leave was required before institution of the suit.iii.Whether the statutory notices were issued
26.Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi or capacity to institute this suitIt is undisputed fact that the loan agreement that gave rise to the attempts by the Defendants to exercise their statutory power of sale was between the Plaintiff deceased husband and the 1st Defendant. It is also not disputed that the suit properly is registered in the name of a deceased person whose estate remains un-administered because no one has applied for letters of administration through a Succession Cause.
27.The loan application form exhibited by the 1st Defendant is clear on the party’s being the deceased, Joel Kivisu Ngondi and the 1st Defendant. A charge dated 27th February 1985 has also been exhibited a charge registered in favour of the 1st Defendant against Land Reference No. Kyangwithya/Misewani/150, a title deed of the land property which lists the deceased as the proprietor has also been exhibited.
28.The issue of capacity by the Plaintiff to lodge this case though raised at submissions stage by the Defendant is a point of Law which can be raised at any stage of proceedings.
29.The Plaintiff made an admission during trial that she had no letters of administration and that no one in the family had applied for it posing the question as whether she had legal capacity or locus standi to file this suit on behalf of the estate of her husband.
30.What is locus standi? In the case of Alfred Njau –Vs- City Council of Nairobi  KLR 625 the Court of Appeal, held that;
31.In the case of Daykio Plantations Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others  eKLR, the court discussed the question of Locus Standi as follows;Further in the case of Alfred Njau and Others ..Vs.. City Council of Nairobi ( 1982) KAR 229, the Court also held that;-
32.The Law required the Plaintiff to take out letters of administration first to enable her institute a suit to protect the suit property. Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act provides as follows: -
33.In re Estate of Francis Kimani Muchiri (Deceased)  eKLR, (Musyoka J) held as follows;
34.The Plaintiff or anyone claiming an interest on the suit property could only challenge the Defendants’ attempt to sale the suit property by first obtaining letters of administration in respect to the estate of the deceased. In the absence of the letters of administration, the Plaintiff’s lacked capacity to institute a competent suit.
35.In Julian Adoyo Ongunga & another v Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi, Deceased)  eKLR Justice A. Mrima had this to say on the issue of a party filing a suit without having obtained a limited grant.
36.Whether leave was required before filing this suitCounsel for the Plaintiff while listing parties to the suit indicated the 1st Defendant as being under liquidation. In his written submissions, Counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that the 1st Defendant was under liquidation as such, the Plaintiff required leave prior to filing of this suit and failure to seek said leave rendered the Plaintiff’s suit defective.
37.Section 56 of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act on stay of proceedings provides as follows;a.No cause of action which subsisted against the directors, management or the institution prior to liquidation shall be maintained against the liquidatorb.No injunction may be brought or any other proceeding may be commenced or continued against the institution or in respect of its assets without the sanction of the courtc.No attachment, garnishment, execution or other method of enforcement of a judgment or order against the institution or its assets may take place or continue
38.The legal requirement for leave before instituting a suit against a party under liquidation was aimed at protecting companies under liquidation to manage liabilities in an orderly manner.
39.In the case of Bougainville Estate Limited v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (sued in their capacity as Receiver Managers of Imperial Bank Limited (In Receivership) & 3 others  eKLR, the held as follows on the purpose of getting leave before filing a suit against an institution under liquidation;‘‘The essence of seeking leave to commence a suit, is to verify that the applicant has a valid claim, which they need to pursue against the institution and by extension the corporation. The main aim is thus to create orderliness, decency and avoid a floodgate of actions which may involve some of the matters placed under supervision…..…..’’
40.The requirement of leave was mandatory before the Plaintiff instituted the suit and there is no evidence that such leave was sought in the first place. That in my view also renders this suit fatally defective and incompetent.