The Kenyan legal landscape was recently treated to a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, bringing to a close a commercial dispute that had wound its way through the courts for an astonishing thirty-five years. The case pitted Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited against Manchester Outfitters, now known as King Woolen Mills Limited, and its associates.
The Core Conflict: When One Security Must Serve Multiple Loans
At the heart of this protracted battle were fundamental questions about the nature of financial securities. When a bank holds a security like a charge or a debenture, must it register a fresh one for every new loan it extends to the same borrower? And perhaps more fundamentally, if a loan somehow ends up being unsecured, does that magically erase the borrower’s duty to repay the money? The Supreme Court’s answers have provided much-needed clarity for lenders and borrowers across the nation.
The case begins in the early 1980s, a time of different financial regulations. Manchester Outfitters obtained a substantial loan in Deutsche Marks and Swiss Francs from Standard Chartered Merchant Bank in London. To secure this Euro Currency loan, the local Kenyan entity, Standard Chartered Financial Services, provided a guarantee. In turn, Manchester Outfitters gave securities to the local Standard Chartered entity, executing a debenture that created a charge over its immovable property and a floating charge over its other assets, plus a specific legal charge over two parcels of land. This web of agreements was standard practice, creating a chain of security.
The plot thickened in 1986. With the borrower struggling with currency fluctuations, the parties agreed to ‘localize’ the foreign currency loan. The local Standard Chartered entity took over the loan from its London sister company, converting the outstanding amount into a Kenya Shillings facility. The borrower fell into arrears on this new local loan. Consequently, the lender, relying on the powers granted in the original 1982 debenture, appointed receivers and managers to take control of the borrower’s assets and business. This appointment was the match that lit the litigation fuse.
A Tale of Two Courts: How the High Court and Court of Appeal Disagreed
The borrower’s central argument was that the 1982 debenture and legal charge were created solely to secure the guarantee for the original Euro Currency loan. They contended that when that loan was replaced by the localized loan, the old securities were discharged. They pointed to the new facility letter which stated it superseded all previous agreements. Since they never executed fresh securities for the local loan, they argued, the lender had no right to appoint receivers based on the old, and now defunct, debenture. The High Court, however, saw things differently. It found that the debenture was a valid continuing security that had not been discharged and thus could secure the subsequent localized loan. It dismissed the borrower’s case and allowed the lender’s counterclaim for the outstanding debt.
Not satisfied, the borrower took the matter to the Court of Appeal. In a dramatic reversal, the appellate court agreed with the borrower. It held that the localized loan was a fresh facility requiring fresh securities. Since no new charge or debenture was registered for this loan, the lender had no valid instrument upon which to appoint the receivers. The court declared the appointment invalid and sent the case back to the High Court to assess damages payable to the borrower. This created a legal conundrum, with the High Court and the Court of Appeal adopting diametrically opposed positions on a routine banking practice. It was this conflict that paved the way for the Supreme Court’s intervention to settle the law once and for all.
The Legal Heart of the Matter: What is a “Continuing Security”?
The Supreme Court framed its analysis around two certified issues of general public importance. The first question was whether a financier must register fresh securities for every new advance if the original securities have not been formally discharged. To answer this, the Court delved into the legal framework governing securities, primarily the now-repealed Companies Act and Registered Land Act, whose principles live on in current legislation.
The Court explained the concept of a “continuing security.” It referred to section ninety-two of the repealed Companies Act, which explicitly stated that debentures deposited to secure advances on a current account are not deemed redeemed simply because the account temporarily shows a credit balance. This statutory provision codified a longstanding banking practice where a security instrument could cover a fluctuating debt or future advances.
Why Formalities Matter: The Law on Discharging a Charge or Debenture
The Court also highlighted section one hundred and one of the same Act, which detailed that a registered charge subsists until a formal “memorandum of satisfaction” is registered. Similarly, under the repealed Registered Land Act, section eighty-one mandated that a charge is only discharged by a formal instrument of discharge and its subsequent cancellation in the land register.
The Court reasoned that these provisions create a clear and formal process. A security does not vanish automatically upon repayment of a specific loan. It persists, or “continues,” until the formal statutory steps for its discharge are completed. This provides certainty in commercial dealings. A lender can have confidence that its security remains intact for future advances, and any person inspecting the register is put on notice of the enduring encumbrance. The Court endorsed a line of previous decisions, such as Habib Bank vs Rajnikant Shah, which affirmed that a legal charge operates as a continuing security for as long as the debt remains unpaid and the charge remains undischarged.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the 1982 debenture contained explicit clauses stating it was a “continuing security” for all sums due to the lender, whether as a guarantor or as a principal lender. The localization of the loan was not a completely new transaction but a takeover and conversion of an existing debt. The parties’ conduct confirmed this understanding; for instance, years after the localization, the borrower’s other bank sought the lender’s consent as a co-chargee to restructure its own securities, an action that would be nonsensical if the lender’s securities had truly been discharged. The Court concluded that the debenture and charge were valid, continuing securities for the localized loan, and the appointment of the receivers was therefore lawful and proper.
A Borrower’s Last Stand: The Argument That the Debt Itself Vanished
The second issue before the Court was whether the absence of a security instrument discharges the borrower’s obligation to repay the loan. The Court drew a crucial distinction between the loan agreement itself and the security that supports it.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict: Clarity on Securities and the Duty to Repay
The loan agreement creates a personal obligation to repay, rooted in the basic principles of contract law offer, acceptance, and consideration. The borrower receives money and is morally and legally bound to return it. The security, be it a charge or debenture, is merely an accessory to this primary obligation. It is a safety net for the lender, not a condition that extinguishes the debt if the net is missing.
The Court firmly stated that a borrower cannot in good conscience receive and use borrowed funds and then later escape repayment by arguing that the security was not perfected. The right to recover the debt exists independently. If the security is invalid, the loan simply becomes an unsecured debt, but the duty to repay remains. The only exception would be if the loan contract was explicitly conditional, making the advance of funds contingent upon the execution of a specific security instrument. No such condition existed in this case.
The Principle of Unjust Enrichment: You Cannot Keep the Money and the Asset
The Court warned that allowing a borrower to keep both the money and be released from repayment due to a security technicality would lead to unjust enrichment, an outcome the law seeks to prevent.
In its final orders, the Supreme Court allowed the lender’s appeal. It set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment and reinstated the judgment of the High Court, which had declared the debenture valid and awarded the lender the outstanding debt. See more HERE
Leave a Reply