[2006] KECA 202 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the applicants' motion for injunction was untenable because the property in question had already been sold to a third party at a public auction, and that party was not served with the application nor heard by the court. The court emphasized that it could not make an order adverse to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KECA 202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abdul Kader Abdul Khaliq Said (suing as personal Representative of the Estate of Abdul Said); Applicant: Hassan Hussein Ajeb; Applicant: Rita Cheptarus (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Reginald Sitienei); Applicant: James Mwangi; Applicant: Eldoret Drycleaners Limited; Respondent: National Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 45 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Statutory Power of Sale, Mortgage Enforcement, Security for Loans
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdul Kader Abdul Khaliq Said (suing as personal Representative of the Estate of Abdul Said)
Applicant
Hassan Hussein Ajeb
Applicant
Rita Cheptarus (suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Reginald Sitienei)
Applicant
James Mwangi
Applicant
Eldoret Drycleaners Limited
Applicant
National Bank of Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the charged property pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the sale of the property to a third party renders the application for injunction nugatory.
- 3 Whether the court can grant an injunction where the applicants failed to comply with previous conditional orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the applicants' motion for injunction was untenable because the property in question had already been sold to a third party at a public auction, and that party was not served with the application nor heard by the court. The court emphasized that it could not make an order adverse to the interests of a third party without hearing them. Furthermore, the applicants had previously been granted a conditional injunction by the High Court, which they failed to comply with, resulting in the lapse of the injunction. The court found that the applicants could only blame themselves for the lapse and that the application had been overtaken by events. Consequently, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicants' notice of motion dated 9th December, 2005 and lodged in Court on 20th February, 2006 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Civil Appli 45 of 2006
ABDUL KADER ABDUL KHALIQ SAID (suing as personal
Representative of the Estate of ABDUL SAID...……………….1st APPLICANT
HASSAN HUSSEIN AJEB……………………..…....…………….………2ND APPLICANT
RITA CHEPTARUS (suing as the Administratrix
of the Estate of REGINALD SITIENEI)…………....………….…….3RD APPLICANT
JAMES MWANGI...…....………………………………......…………..…4TH APPLICANT
ELDORET DRYCLEANERS LIMITED………....…...…..……...………..5TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED…………........………………...…RESPONDENT
(Being an application for injunction pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an appeal from the Ruling of (Emukule, J) dated 17th 2005
In
H.C.S.C. NO. 42 OF 2005)
*************
RULING OF THE COURT
The notice of motion before the Court is one under Rule 5(2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and it seeks one basic order, excepting that for costs, namely,
“THAT the Respondent through itself, employees, servants and/or agents and/or any other person acting on its behalf be restrained by injunction from advertising, selling, transferring, alienating, and/or disposing off (sic) in any other manner Title Number Eldoret Municipality/Block 3/32 pending the lodging, hearing and determination of the intended Appeal by the Applicants against the decision in HCCC No. 42 of 2005 (Milimani) given on 17th June, 2005”.
The “Applicants” referred to in the above prayer are ABDUL KADER ABDUL KHALIQ SAID who sued as the personal representative of the estate of ABDUL SAID, the 1st Applicant, HASSAN HUSSEIN AJEB, the 2nd Applicant, RITA CHEPTARUS representing the estate of REGINALD SITIENEI, the 3rd Applicant, JAMES MWANGI, the 4th Applicant and ELDORET DRYCLEANERS LTD, the 5th Applicant. The Respondent to the motion is the NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LTD. It appears from the material before us that the Respondent, in the course of its business as a banker, advanced money to the 5th Applicant to enable the 5th Applicant conduct its business. As security for the money so advanced, Land Title No. Eldoret Municipality/Block 3/32 was charged to the Respondent and as is not unusual in such cases, the money lent was not repaid or repaid fully. The Respondent sought to exercise its statutory power of sale. The Applicants, in a bid to thwart the power of sale being exercised, filed HCCC No. 42 of 2005, at the Milimani Commercial Courts and simultaneously with the filing of the plaint, an application for an injunction in terms similar to the one now prayed for before us, was also filed. That application for injunction came up for hearing before Emukule, J and by his ruling dated 17th June, 2005 the learned Judge refused to grant the application for injunction. The applicants were aggrieved by that refusal and on 22nd June, 2005, they filed their notice of appeal against the decision of Emukule, J. In the meantime, the Applicants again returned to the superior court and asked for an injunction pending the filing and hearing of their intended appeal. Ochieng J, heard the latter application and in a considered ruling dated and delivered on 5th October, 2005, Ochieng, J granted an injunction on condition that the applicants
“……………………… to deposit with the Defendant the sum of Kshs.4,500,000/= within the next sixty days. The same sum is to be held by the Defendant in an interest earning account and shall constitute security to the Defendant in the event that the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
In the event that the plaintiff should fail to deposit the sum of Kshs.4,500,000/= with the Defendant within the stipulated period of sixty days, the injunction herein shall stand vacated.”
The Applicants were again aggrieved by the order of Ochieng, J. and on 19th October, 2005, the Applicants lodged another notice of appeal against
“………….. the decision (Order) that the plaintiffs/applicants do deposit with the defendant within 60 days from the said date sum of Kshs.4,500,000/= to be held as security and that in default of complying with the said condition the injunction stands vacated”.
In other words, the Applicants were and are still seeking an injunction on their own terms and would not countenance any conditions being placed on the grant of the injunction. Needless to say they did not comply with the orders made by Ochieng J. They instead filed the present motion before us on 20th February, 2006 and that must be long after the expiry of the order of Ochieng J, as the injunction granted by that Judge must have stood vacated on or by 5th December, 2005. Now we are told in the supplementary affidavit of George O. Ojiambo, the Respondent’s Branch Manager at Eldoret, that a public auction was held on 14th March, 2006 and that the disputed land was bought by one Karuri Mwangi who was the highest bidder at the auction and who duly paid 25% of the bid price. Karuri Mwangi was not served with the motion before us, and we have not heard him.
That being the position, even if the applicants had an arguable appeal and even if his appeal would be rendered nugatory if an injunction is not granted to them, we do not see how we can possibly grant to them the injunction they seek. Their motion has been overtaken by the stated sale to a third party and it would be unreasonable for us to restrain a sale which has already taken place. Nor can we restrain the transfer to the third party who bought the land at the public auction on 14th March, 2006; that party was not served with the current motion and we have not heard him. We cannot make an order adverse to his interest without hearing what he has to say. In any case the applicants had an order of stay and having allowed it to lapse, they can only blame themselves.
We are satisfied that the motion before us is untenable and that being our view of the matter, we order that the Applicants’ notice of motion dated 9th December, 2005 and lodged in Court on 20th February, 2006 be and is hereby dismissed with the cost thereof to the Respondent.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 16th day of June, 2006.
R.S.C. OMOLO
…………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.N. WAKI
…………………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
W.S. DEVERELL
………………………………………
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is
a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR