[2013] KEHC 2944 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 2944 (KLR)

The court considered whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant failed to file a further affidavit to counter the evidence and documents produced by the 1st defendant, including the charge document and guarantee form. The court found that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 2944 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Annah Nasimiyu Murunga; Defendant: K-Rep Bank Limited; Defendant: Garam Investments
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 6 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Land Auction Disputes, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Land Auction Disputes Mortgage Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annah Nasimiyu Murunga

Plaintiff

K-Rep Bank Limited

Defendant

Garam Investments

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from auctioning the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court considered whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant failed to file a further affidavit to counter the evidence and documents produced by the 1st defendant, including the charge document and guarantee form. The court found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated a probability of success or irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, as the respondents had followed due process in seeking to auction the property following default. Consequently, the application for an injunction was not merited and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.