The High Court in Nairobi has barred SBM Bank Kenya Limited from auctioning a Karen property belonging to a widow after finding that the charge used to secure her late husband’s loan was invalid and unenforceable.
In a judgment delivered on February 13, 2026, Justice Helene R. Namisi ruled in favour of Florence Edelquonn Wendoh, who had moved to court seeking to stop the bank from exercising its statutory power of sale over the property known as LR No. 2327/277 in Karen, Nairobi.
Wendoh told the court that the property served as her matrimonial home with her late husband, Charles Khakali Maringo, until his death in April 2021. She challenged the bank’s attempt to auction the land, arguing that she neither consented to nor lawfully executed the security documents relied upon by the lender.
The dispute traces its origins to loan facilities allegedly advanced by Chase Bank Kenya Limited, whose assets and liabilities were later acquired by SBM Bank. According to the bank, the deceased had obtained financial facilities secured by the Karen property and later restructured the debt, increasing the facility to KSh 14.6 million.
The bank maintained that the widow was aware of the transactions and had signed several security documents, including a legal mortgage, a guarantee and indemnity, spousal consent forms and valuation authorisations.
However, Wendoh denied knowledge of the facilities and insisted she only became aware of the debt after her husband’s illness and subsequent death.
During the hearing, the court examined whether the mortgage and related security documents had been properly executed and whether the bank was entitled to proceed with the sale.
Justice Namisi found that the bank’s reliance on an alleged informal charge was legally flawed. The court noted that under the Land Act, an informal charge created through the deposit of a title deed does not automatically confer a statutory power of sale and requires a court order before any sale can be undertaken. The judge further held that the bank had issued notices and moved to sell the property through public auction without first obtaining the necessary court authority.
The court concluded that the charge registered against the property on April 3, 2012 was invalid and void from the outset due to lack of proper execution, absence of spousal consent and fraudulent misrepresentation. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favour of the widow, issued a permanent injunction restraining SBM Bank, its officers and agents from selling or interfering with the property, and awarded her the costs of the suit.
The ruling effectively shields the Karen matrimonial home from auction and underscores the importance of proper spousal consent and compliance with statutory requirements in transactions involving matrimonial property.
