The Anaj decision is easy to misread if you turn it into an all-or-nothing rule. It was not a blanket blessing for defective practice, and it was not a finding that every flawed conveyancing document survives. What the Supreme Court actually held was narrower: a conveyancing instrument is not invalid solely because the advocate who prepared it lacked a current practising certificate.
That distinction matters for anyone reviewing historic land security. A buyer, lender, or due diligence team may find a defect in the file and jump straight to the worst-case conclusion. Anaj says you still have to identify which defect you found, who caused it, and whether it is the kind of defect that the law treats as fatal.
- Case: National Bank of Kenya Limited v Anaj Warehousing Limited
- Court: Supreme Court of Kenya
- Decision date: 2 December 2015
- Docket: Petition No. 36 of 2014
- Primary decision: Read the judgment
What the court was deciding
Anaj challenged a 1994 guarantee and charge over the preparing advocate's qualification under section 34 of the Advocates Act. The High Court followed the earlier Ndolo Ayah decision, declared the charge invalid and directed its discharge. The bank's appeal was dismissed before the dispute reached the Supreme Court. That lower-court history was not the final outcome. Judgment, pp. 4–7, paras. 3–12
The bank succeeded in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal judgment of 27 February 2014 was set aside, and Anaj Warehousing Limited was ordered to bear the costs of this appeal. This did not add an auction timetable, quantified debt or new discharge direction. The judicial closing gives 2 December 2015, despite the download page's 1 December label. Judgment, p. 27, para. 71 and dated closing
The distinction in paragraph 68
The Court held that a conveyancing instrument is not invalid solely because its advocate lacked a current practising certificate. The protection concerns automatic invalidity based on that one professional-status defect.
But the Court expressly distinguished documents prepared by other unqualified providers, such as non-advocates or advocates struck off the roll. Those remain void for all purposes. The ruling does not collapse every authorisation problem into the same outcome. Judgment, p. 26, para. 68
That is the practical lesson: ask what kind of defect you actually have. A missing current practising certificate is not the same thing as forgery, a fake advocate, a struck-off practitioner, a missing stamp duty issue, or a broken transfer chain.
What the judgment does not cure
The Court was careful not to make this a universal clean bill of health.
Paragraph 69 preserves criminal, civil, and disciplinary proceedings against the advocate. The lawyer's conduct may still attract liability even if the client's instrument is not automatically void. This is not proof that any particular later proceeding succeeded. Judgment, p. 26, para. 69
The Court also distinguished stamp-duty admissibility issues from the validity question before it; these instruments were stamped. It did not hold that all unstamped or irregular instruments are saved. Judgment, pp. 22–23, para. 59
The quoted Ndolo Ayah invalidity ruling concerns a separate dispute. It is not a substitute for the final Anaj holding. Judgment, pp. 17–19, paras. 43–47
Why this matters for lenders and buyers
For a lender, the case warns against two bad habits.
First, do not assume that any professional defect destroys the security automatically. You may need to look more closely at the exact defect, the surrounding documents, and the historical record.
Second, do not assume the opposite either. Anaj does not mean “if the advocate had a certificate issue, everything else is fine.” Historic instruments still need document-by-document review. The title chain, execution dates, supporting resolutions, stamp duty, and registrations still matter.
For a buyer, the same point applies. If the file contains a dated instrument prepared by an advocate whose status was irregular, the answer is not a slogan. It is a document trail. What was signed, when was it signed, who signed it, what else supported it, and what defect actually appears in the record?
ArdhiScore helps organise available, dated parcel evidence and the questions that follow from it. It does not authenticate instruments, validate a charge, guarantee prevention, or replace professional advice. Start with the specific defect and the supporting record, rather than assuming either automatic invalidity or an all-clear.
Educational information only; not legal advice. This article explains the 2 December 2015 judgment, not later legislation, enforcement or the current legal status of a particular transaction.