[2025] KEELC 4676 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's factual assertions regarding lack of spousal consent and the invalidity of the charge over the suit property were unchallenged, as the defendants did not file any response or affidavit to controvert the evidence. Accepting the plaintiff's affidavit evidence as true for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 4676 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Barka Said Basmer (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ali Said Basmer - Deceased); Defendant: I & M Bank Limited; Defendant: Ranjitsingji Mangalsinji Vaghela
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for interim injunction allowed.
- Judges
- YM Angima
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Spousal Consent, Statutory Notices, Mortgage Charges
- 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
Barka Said Basmer (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ali Said Basmer - Deceased)
Plaintiff
I & M Bank Limited
Defendant
Ranjitsingji Mangalsinji Vaghela
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the charge registered over the suit property without proper spousal consent is valid.
- 3 Whether the estate of the deceased stands to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's factual assertions regarding lack of spousal consent and the invalidity of the charge over the suit property were unchallenged, as the defendants did not file any response or affidavit to controvert the evidence. Accepting the plaintiff's affidavit evidence as true for the purposes of the application, the court held that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial. The court further found that the estate of the deceased would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as the property could be sold or otherwise disposed of, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for interim injunction allowed.
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 08.03.2024 is allowed in terms of order no. 3 thereof pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Basmer (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ali Said Basmer - Deceased) v I & M Bank Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4676 (KLR) (19 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 4676 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024
YM Angima, J
June 19, 2025
Between
Barka Said Basmer (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Ali Said Basmer - Deceased)
Plaintiff
and
I & M Bank Limited
1st Defendant
Ranjitsingji Mangalsinji Vaghela
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. By a notice of motion dated 08. 03. 2024 filed pursuant to Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law the plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession and quiet enjoyment of portion No. 9586(original No.4088/2) or Malindi (the suit property) or from evicting her, demolishing, alienating, disposing of or dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
2. The plaintiff pleaded that she was the administrator of the estate of her late husband Ali Said Basmer (the deceased) who was at all material times the registered proprietor of the suit property. It was pleaded that the 1st defendant had purported to register a charge over the suit property in 2019 to secure the payment of an overdraft facility granted to Coast Battery Distributors not exceeding Kshs. 15 million without spousal consent as required by law. It was contended that the person who purported to give spousal consent known as Barikech Saad Rashid was not a spouse of the deceased.
3. It was the plaintiff’s case that she was not made aware of the alleged overdraft facility and that she later on learnt that the 1st defendant had issued a statutory notice for the intended sale of the suit property on account of the impugned charge document. It was claimed that the notices dated 2022 and 2023 were addressed to the deceased who died on 23. 10. 2020. It was the plaintiff’s case that the deceased had only 2 wives during his lifetime and that the said Barikech Saad Rashid was not one of them. The plaintiff therefore contended that the charge over the suit property was illegal, null and void and that any intended sale on account of the impugned charge would be a nullity.
4. The plaintiff further pleaded that unless the interim injunction sought was granted the estate of the deceased stood to suffer irreparable loss and damage which could not be adequately compensated by an award of monetary damages. As a result, the court was urged to allow the application.
5. There is no indication on record to show that the defendants filed any response to the application. The record shows that the 2nd defendant informed the court that he did not wish to participate in the application. However, the 1st defendant requested for more time on 16. 01. 2025 and 24. 03. 2025 to file a response to the application. However, none had been filed by the time of preparation of the ruling.
6. The court has considered the material and submissions on record. The main issue for determination is whether or not the plaintiff has satisfied the principles for the grant of an interim injunction pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
7. The court has noted that the factual basis of the plaintiff’s application has not been challenged or controverted by any affidavit. The court is thus inclined to accept the plaintiff’s affidavit evidence as true for purposes of the application for interim orders. The court is of the view that the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success at the trial and that the estate of the deceased may suffer irreparable and injury in the absence of an interim injunction.
8. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court finds merit in the plaintiff’s application dated 08. 03. 2024 and makes the following disposal orders;a.The notice of motion dated 08. 03. 2024 is hereby allowed in terms of order no. 3 thereof pending the hearing and determination of the suit.b.The costs of the application shall be in the cause.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED AND SIGNED AT MOMBASA AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. ..................................Y. M. ANGIMAJUDGEIn the presence of:Gillian - Court assistantMr. Gikandi for the plaintiffMr. Darr for the 1st defendantMs. Essajee for the 2nd defendant