Home » Blog » SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CREDIT LIMITED VERSUS LANDMARK CONCEPTS COMPANY LTD & 2 OTHERS [2025] KEHC 16204 (KLR)

SYNERGY INDUSTRIAL CREDIT LIMITED VERSUS LANDMARK CONCEPTS COMPANY LTD & 2 OTHERS [2025] KEHC 16204 (KLR)

Authored By: EUVIE MORAA OCHUKU

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani)  

Judgment date: 6th November 2025 

Synergy Industrial Credit Limited……Appellants  Versus  

Landmark Concepts Company Limited……Respondents  

FACTS  

Synergy Industrial Credit Limited obtained a partial monetary judgment in 2013 against Landmark  Concepts Company Limited and its co-respondents for KSh 5.5 million plus costs and interest.  Ten years later, in 2023, Synergy sought to enforce the decree by applying for prohibitory orders  over two properties registered in the name of the 2nd respondent: 

  1. Eldoret Municipality/Block 14/284, and 
  2. Pioneer/Ngeria Block 1 (EATC) 12477. 

Official land searches dated June 2023 confirmed that both parcels were still legally registered in  the 2nd respondent’s name. However, the respondents opposed the application. They claimed the  Eldoret property was charged to ABC Bank under a 2014 encumbrance, and the Pioneer/Ngeria  property had been sold to a third party, allegedly creating an equitable or overriding interest  preventing attachment. 

The Magistrate accepted these explanations and dismissed Synergy’s application, declining to  issue prohibitory orders. Feeling aggrieved, Synergy filed an appeal at the High Court. 

Issues 

Whether the two properties despite alleged charges, sales, or third-party claims were available and  liable for attachment in execution of Synergy’s decree. 

Arguments of Both Parties 

Synergy (Appellant) 

The respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence of the alleged ABC Bank charge: no  charge instrument, no loan documents, no evidence of an outstanding debt. 

The alleged sale of the Pioneer/Ngeria property to a third party was never completed or registered;  at law, ownership still vested in the 2nd respondent.

A mere entry on a land search cannot override the statutory rule under Section 44(1) of the Civil  Procedure Act, which makes a judgment debtor’s property liable to attachment unless a valid,  proven encumbrance exists. 

No third party filed an objection or came forward to assert a proprietary claim, meaning any alleged  beneficial interest was unproven. 

Respondents 

The Eldoret property was subject to a 2014 charge in favour of ABC Bank, meaning it was  encumbered and unavailable for attachment. 

The Pioneer/Ngeria property had been sold to one Mike Kibet Bitok, and the respondents claimed  only bare legal title remained with the 2nd respondent. 

Attachment, they argued, would unfairly prejudice the bank (as chargee) and the buyer (as  equitable owner). 

Judgment 

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Magistrate’s ruling, and granted prohibitory  orders over both parcels, allowing Synergy to proceed with attachment and eventual sale in  execution. 

Legal Reasoning 

The Court held that the burden of proof rests on the party alleging an encumbrance or overriding  interest. Register entries alone are not determinative; the party must produce the actual instruments charge document, sale agreement, completion documents, loan records, or evidence showing an  existing and enforceable third-party right. 

Because the respondents produced no primary documents, no proof of a subsisting charge, and no  evidence of a completed or registered sale, the Court concluded that both properties remained fully  attachable. The magistrate therefore erred in relying solely on unverified entries and assertions. 

Conclusion 

The High Court ultimately reaffirmed that execution cannot be defeated by unproven claims of  encumbrances or third-party interests. A land register entry, without the supporting charge  instrument or evidence of a completed sale, is insufficient to bar a judgment creditor from attaching  a debtor’s property. By failing to produce the necessary documents, the respondents left the legal  and beneficial ownership of both properties squarely with the 2nd respondent. Consequently,  Synergy’s right to levy execution prevailed. The decision strengthens the principle that claims that  restrict a creditor’s enforcement rights must be backed by concrete, verifiable proof, otherwise the  property remains available for attachment

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top