[2006] KECA 202 (KLR)

[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
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Injunctions Statutory Power of Sale Mortgage Enforcement Security for Loans

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of the charged property pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the property to a third party renders the application for injunction nugatory.
  3. 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.