A proposed debt settlement is not the same as money reaching the lender. Where charged land faces sale, the evidence needs to show both what notices were served and whether the steps promised to avert the auction actually settled the debt.
That distinction was central to L.N. Property Development Co. Ltd and Luore Nyoire Co. Ltd v Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Appeal No. 587 of 2019, judgment dated 12 June 2026. The court dismissed the companies' appeal with costs to the bank, finding that the chargor had received the required notices and sufficient opportunity to redeem the property. (PDF pages 18-20, paragraphs 55-66.)
The dispute went beyond an unpaid loan
One company borrowed from Fidelity, with a charge over land registered to the other. After default, the companies proposed payments and assignment of treasury-bill proceeds as part of a settlement. They argued that the bank's failure to perfect the treasury bill caused the proceeds to reach the wrong account, and challenged both the notices and the bank's conduct. The bank disputed responsibility and maintained that the debt remained unpaid. (Pages 2-3, paragraphs 3-8; pages 13-14, paragraphs 35-42.)
The High Court dismissed the claim. It noted that prayers directed at an intended sale had been overtaken because the auction occurred on 10 July 2012, before the suit was filed. The appeal sought to set that judgment aside and substitute an award of general damages. That procedural history matters: the appellate outcome was not a new order scheduling an auction. (Pages 5-7, paragraphs 12-14.)
Read the service evidence as a whole
The companies relied on incorrect postal-address entries and disputed receipt of the notices. The appellate court nevertheless found service established on the record. It identified a statutory notice sent to the chargor through the address in the charge, with copies to the borrower and directors. For the later 45-day notice, one postage certificate carried an incorrect number, but copies went to the directors at the correct address. (Pages 18-19, paragraphs 55-58.)
The court also relied on the companies' own pleading that they had received a notification of sale and responded with a settlement proposal. Its conclusion was evidence-specific. It does not mean an address error is always harmless, or that negotiations automatically replace mandatory notice. A transaction file should preserve the actual notices, recipients, delivery evidence and responses rather than reducing the issue to whether somebody knew an auction was possible. (Page 18, paragraph 55; page 19, paragraphs 57-58.)
A promised transfer remained unpaid
The court found that the bank had accommodated the companies for approximately six months, but the treasury-bill proceeds had not been remitted. After an email raised the problem, the companies responded that they would effect a bank transfer. The debt remained unsettled, and further notices preceded the July auction. Those findings explain why the court rejected the claimed denial of an opportunity to redeem. (Page 19, paragraphs 59-62.)
There was no basis for general damages against Fidelity. The court also said that grievances concerning breaches of the Auctioneers Rules should properly be directed against the auctioneers themselves. It did not award damages against an auctioneer in this appeal. (Pages 19-20, paragraphs 63-66.)
The judgment applied the repealed Registered Land Act to this historical dispute alongside the Auctioneers Rules. Its notice analysis should not be presented as a complete checklist for every current enforcement process. This account has not checked later proceedings, current title or implementation. (Pages 16-18, paragraphs 49-54.)
For owners and advisers, payment evidence and enforcement history are distinct checks. See how ArdhiScore works with available court, gazette and field evidence for parcel intelligence. Coverage varies; it does not provide bank-account access, guarantee prevention of a sale or replace professional advice.