https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7812

Aseto v Stanbic Bank Kenya Ltd & another (Civil Suit E001 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7812 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7812 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Civil Suit E001 of 2024 RC Rutto, J June 4, 2026 Between Benson Okinyi Aseto Plaintiff and Stanbic Bank Kenya Ltd 1st Defendant Garam Investment Auctioneers 2nd Defendant Judgment 1.By way of a plaint dated 17th January, 2024, the Plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendant seeking the following orders: -a.An injunction order restraining the Defendants either by themselves or their servants and or agents from advertising for sale, selling by public auction or interfering, alienating or howsoever dealing with the property Unit Number Tb 098a Situate On L.r No. 27409 Greenpark Estate, Off Mombasa Road at Machakos County.b.An order restraining the 1st Defendant from acting in contravention of the in duplum principle.c.Costs of this suit.d.Any other relief the court deems fit. 2.The Plaintiff alleges that on or about 17th March, 2017, and 12th April, 2017, he obtained a loan of Kshs. 11, 800, 000/= from the 1st Defendant. At the time, he was employed as a Finance Officer at AMSCO Development Solution Limited until 28th August, 2019, when he exited formal employment. Thereafter, he established a consulting firm to sustain himself and his family. The Plaintiff avers that he serviced the loan facility as agreed until the onset of Covid 19 pandemic, which severely affected his business operations, leading to significant financial losses. Consequently, he has been unable to meet his repayment obligations in full. He further states that the 1st Defendant was aware of the adverse effects of the pandemic and the resultant business disruptions, and that he has remained in constant communication with the 1st Defendant regarding his financial status. 3.The Plaintiff contends that he serviced the loan consistently from 2017 until late 2019 following which he made partial payments through 2020 during the pandemic period. However, he was unable to clear the outstanding loan within the specified period. 4.He further avers that the 1st Defendant intends to advertise for sale, dispose, sale and lease, or otherwise dispose of his residential property, Unit Number Tb 098a Situate On L.r No. 27409 Greenpark Estate, Off Mombasa Road at Machakos County in a manner that will prejudice his proprietary rights. At the time of filing this suit, the 1st Defendant was demanding Kshs. 20, 387, 462.32/= in addition to Kshs. 285, 100/= and Kshs. 485, 200/=. 5.The Plaintiff disputes this amount, stating that it exceeds twice the principle sum and is therefore in violation of the induplum principle, which limits recoverable interest. He further expresses willingness to secure a purchaser for the property through a private treaty at a price higher than the anticipated force sale value. 6.In their Defence dated 20th February, 2024, the Defendant admit advancing a loan facility to the Plaintiff vide a letter of offer dated 12th April, 2017, for Kshs. 11, 800, 000/=. The facility was secured by a charge dated 2nd July, 2018, over the suit property. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff default was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, asserting that the Plaintiff had been in default even prior to the pandemic and continued in default thereafter. They urged that the Plaintiff cannot attribute his failure to repay the loan to the pandemic 4 years later. 7.The Defendants further state that the Plaintiff was duly served with all statutory notices and demand letters indicating the amounts outstanding at various times, and that he had the opportunity to obtain his loan statements to ascertain the outstanding loan. They maintain that the Plaintiff was fully aware that the property was charged as security and would be subject to sale upon default. 8.With regard to the in duplum rule, the Defendants contends it applies only where the accrued interests exceed the outstanding principal at the time the loan becomes non performing. They state that as at 28th December, 2021, being at least 30 days prior to the issuance of the 90 days’ notice, the outstanding balance stood at Kshs. 15, 763, 694. 47/=. Accordingly, they maintained that they are entitled to recover interest up to, but not exceeding, that amount. 9.While expressing no objection to a private treaty sale, the Defendants note that the Plaintiff has neither identified a willing purchaser nor presented a sale agreement demonstrating that the proceeds would apply towards settlement of the debt. In the absences of such arrangements, the 1st Defendant asserts its right to proceed with realization of the security in accordance with the law. 10.The matter proceeded for hearing on 10th February, 2026, during which each party called one witness. Thereafter, both parties filed their respective submissions. 11.At the trial, PW1, Benson Okinyi Aseto, testified that he is a trained accountant. He adopted his witness statement dated 17th January, 2024, as his evidence in chief and produced the Plaintiff’s Bundle of Documents of even date, which were marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1–5. 12.He testified that the loan facility was obtained for the purchase of a house under a mortgage arrangement, which he serviced using income from his formal employment. He stated that prior to the year 2020, he had no difficulty servicing the facility and consistently made timely payments. However, following his redundancy in 2020, he encountered financial challenges that affected his ability to repay the facility. 13.PW1 further testified that he sought alternative sources of income to continue servicing the facility and communicated his financial difficulties to the lender over a period of approximately two years prior to the hearing. He also submitted a repayment plan to the bank, which was not accepted. He stated that his prayer before the Court was for a review of interest charged on the loan account, as the outstanding amount had almost doubled the principal sum borrowed, and for a reasonable payment arrangement to be put in place. 14.On cross-examination, PW1 confirmed that he obtained the home loan facility in 2017 with a repayment period of twenty years payable in monthly instalments of Kshs. 146,736/=. He stated that he first defaulted in September 2019 and that by 2020, his repayments had become irregular and were no longer made monthly. He further testified that the default occurred approximately two years after the commencement of the facility and that the arrears have remained outstanding since 2020. 15.He stated that he was seeking additional time to repay the loan and that he had approached the bank for a moratorium, although he had no documentary evidence to support this. He acknowledged that he was unaware whether the Defendants had knowledge of his business activities after he lost his employment. PW1 further testified that the bank should be restrained from realizing the security on account of the interest charged, which he claimed had exceeded the principle amount borrowed. He nevertheless acknowledged the bank’s right to realize the security, but maintained that, even in the event of sale, an outstanding balance would still remain payable by him. 16.He also stated that attempts to secure a private purchaser had failed, as prospective transactions collapse whenever he introduced a third-party purchaser under a private treaty arrangement. He maintains that the present suit was not frivolous but was intended to compel the bank to render a proper account of the outstanding loan amount. 17.On re-examination, PW1 stated that the agreed repayment period of twenty years had not lapsed, and approximately twelve years remained. He reiterated his request for restructuring of the facility, stating that the total outstanding amount had risen to approximately Kshs. 32,000,000/= whereas the projected total repayment, inclusive of interest, had initially been approximately Kshs. 21,000,000/=. 18.He testified further that he was adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and had submitted approximately five repayment proposals based on his available sources of income, none of which were accepted. He stated that he could not implement any repayment plan without the bank’s approval. PW1 concluded by affirming his willingness to repay the loan facility and his need for additional time, particularly as a sale of the suit property, would not fully extinguish the debt, 19.The foregoing marked the close of the Plaintiff’s case. 20.DW1, Angela Njeri Wangare, testified that she is the Recoveries Manager at Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited. She adopted her witness statement dated 15th May, 2025, as her evidence in chief and produced the Defendant’s List and Bundle of Documents of even date marked as Defence Exhibits 1 to 6. 21.She testified that the bank advanced the Plaintiff a home loan facility secured by a Charge dated 5th June, 2017. She stated that the Plaintiff subsequently defaulted, prompting the bank to issue statutory notices in February 2022. Thereafter, the bank instructed its advocates to issue a forty-day notice, and the suit property was valued in January 2023. She stated that the recovery process was later halted following the filing of the present suit. 22.DW1 testified that the loan facility was repayable by monthly instalments over a period of twenty years. She stated that upon issuance of the statutory notices, the entire loan was recalled thereby bringing the contractual repayment timeline to an end. She testified that as at February 2022, the loan account had been in arrears for twenty-three months, leading to its recall. 23.DW1 testified that the outstanding arrears stood at Kshs. 3.9 million while the outstanding loan balance was Kshs. 16.4 million. She further stated that the bank had accommodated the Plaintiff for approximately one year, during which the arrears increased to Kshs. 6.2 million and the outstanding loan balance rose to Kshs. 18.5 million. She denied that the bank had issued any notice demanding Kshs. 32 million. 24.On cross-examination, DW1 confirmed her familiarity with the Plaintiff’s account and that the facility advanced was Kshs. 11.8 million. She stated that the bank’s documentation did not expressly indicate the total cost of credit, being the total amount payable at the end of the loan term. She added that general estimates available on the Kenya Bankers Association website, suggest that total repayment may be upto three times the principal borrowed. 25.DW1 acknowledged that the Plaintiff serviced the loan diligently between 2017 and 2019. She testified that while the bank is aware of unforeseen events and maintains a restructuring policy, such restructuring is discretion. She further stated that the Plaintiff had sought restructuring of the facility and that the bank accommodated him up to the point when statutory notices were issued, marking the commencement of recovery proceedings. She added that eligibility for restructuring depends on demonstration of the borrower’s ability to continue servicing the facility. 26.DW1 further testified that recovery proceedings resumed in November 2025 and that the property had since been advertised for sale. She stated that as at May 2025, the outstanding amount stood at Kshs. 28,202,172.85/= and continued to accrue interest. 27.DW1 further testified that the interest rates vary and that penalties are charged outside the ordinary loan agreement terms. Referring to the statutory notice, she stated that the applicable default interest rate was the Central Bank Rate plus 10%. She admitted that although the agreed repayment period of twenty years had not lapsed, the loan facility had already been recalled by the bank. She confirmed that there had been communication between the bank and the Plaintiff, but noted that willingness to pay does not, amount to actual repayment. 28.On re-examination, DW1 testified that restructuring depends on proof of ability to repay, including demonstration of a stable source of income and a repayment ability over a period of at least six months. According to DW1, the Plaintiff did not qualify for restructuring as his last payment had been made in October 2019. She concluded by noting that the bank is a commercial institution that charges interest as part of its business operations and that the funds advanced to borrowers are themselves borrowed funds which the bank lends to its customers. 29.Following the close of the evidence, parties to file their respective submissions. The Plaintiff’s submissions are dated 25th March, 2026, while the Defendant’s submissions are dated 30th March, 2026. Plaintiff’s submissions 30.The Plaintiff began his submissions with an introduction to the suit followed by a summary of the factual background of the dispute. 31.The Plaintiff identified four issues for determination by the Court, namely: whether he had met the threshold for grant of injunctive relief; whether the outstanding loan amount claimed by the 1st Defendant contravened the in duplum principle under Section 44A of the Banking Act; whether he was entitled to the reliefs sought; and who should bear the costs of the suit. 32.On the issue of injunctive relief, the Plaintiff relied on the principles set out in the case of Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR) submitting that an Applicant must establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable harm, and show that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour. He argued that he had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as the existence of the loan facility and charge were not disputed, he had serviced the loan diligently until loss of employment and he had acted in good faith by notifying the bank of his financial distress and seeking indulgence. 33.The Plaintiff maintained that despite being aware of his predicament, the 1st Defendant proceeded with the process of sale without accommodating his requests for restructuring. He further submitted that the intended sale threatened his proprietary rights over the suit property. Relying on Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others [2003] KECA 175 (KLR) he contended that he had demonstrated a clear and enforceable right under imminent threat of infringement. He emphasized that, his default was not deliberate or malicious but arose from circumstances beyond his control following loss of employment during the Covid-19 period and that the Defendants’ actions undermined his equity of redemption. 34.On irreparable harm, the Plaintiff relied on Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR) submitting that the suit property was his family home where he resided with his wife and children. He argued that the property held significant sentimental and social value and that its sale by public auction would occasion harm that could not be adequately compensation by an award of damages. He further contended that a forced sale would likely result in a lower-than market price, thereby exposing him to a continuing financial burden due to any shortfall after the proceeds were applied to the loan account. 35.On the balance of convenience, the Plaintiff submitted that the prejudice he would suffer if the injunction was denied outweighed any inconvenience to the Defendants if it were granted. He stated that he had demonstrated willingness to settle the debt and had proposed a sale by private treaty at market value so as to secure a better return. He argued that such an arrangement would protect both parties’ interests by facilitating recover the outstanding debt while mitigating the adverse consequences of a forced sale. 36.On the in duplum Principle, the Plaintiff submitted that the 1st Defendant, as a regulated financial institution was bound by Section 44A of the Banking Act which limits recoverable amounts on non-performing loans. He relied on the decisions in Jelagat & another v Mwananchi Credit Limited & another [2023] KEHC 19922 (KLR) and Mwambela Ranching Company Limited & another v Kenya National Capital Corporation [2019] KECA 436 (KLR) arguing that once accrued interest equals the outstanding principal, further interest ceases to accrue. 37.He pointed out that while the original loan amount was Kshs. 11,800,000/=, the 1st Defendant was allegedly claiming over Kshs. 28 million notwithstanding that the loan term had not lapsed. He contended that the amount claimed substantially exceeded the statutory limit under Section 44A of the Banking Act and was therefore unlawful, unconscionable, and irrecoverable to the extent of the excess claimed. 38.Regarding entitlement to reliefs sought, the Plaintiff submitted having established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and shown a violation of the in duplum Principle, he was entitled to the orders sought in the Plaint. He urged the Court to restrain the Defendants from proceeding with the intended auction and to direct restructuring of the loan facility on fair and manageable terms to enable him regularize the account. 39.On costs, the Plaintiff relied on the Rai & 3 others v Rai & 4 others [2014] KESC 31 (KLR) for the proposition that costs ordinarily follow the event. He submitted that having established a meritorious claim, he was entitled to costs of the suit. 40.In conclusion, the Plaintiff prayed for judgment against the Defendants as prayed for in the plaint. Defendant’s submissions 41.The Defendants commenced their submissions with an introduction to the Plaintiff’s suit followed by a summary of the Plaintiff’s case. They noted that the Plaintiff testified by adopting his witness statement dated 17th January, 2024, and asserted that his default arose after the loss of his employment. The Defendant further observed that the Plaintiff claimed to have communicated his financial difficulties to the Bank and sought indulgence through extension of time or restructuring of the facility, which requests were declined. They also pointed out that during cross-examination, the Plaintiff admitted being in default although he maintained that he was willing to repay the loan if granted additional time or a restructuring arrangement. 42.The Defendant then outlined their own case through the testimony of DW1, Angela Njeri, the 1st Defendant’s Recoveries Manager, who adopted her witness statement dated 15th May, 2025. They submitted that the Plaintiff had been advanced a twenty-year home loan secured by a charge over the suit property and that the default was not disputed. It was contended that although the Plaintiff applied for restructuring of the facility, the request was duly considered and declined for failure to meet the Bank’s restructuring criteria. The Defendant further asserted that the Plaintiff had not made meaningful repayments since defaulting in 2021 and that, despite having had over five years to regularize the account, he had failed to do so. 43.The Defendant also referred to the Court’s earlier directions requiring the Plaintiff to present a repayment proposal for consideration. while acknowledging that such a proposal was submitted, they argued that it was commercially untenable as its projected repayment over a period exceeding seventy years, rendering it impracticable and unacceptable. 44.The Defendants identified the following issues for determination; whether the Plaintiff had defaulted in his contractual obligations under the facility letter dated 12th April, 2017; whether the Plaintiff had a right to be accommodated through restructuring; whether the Bank’s right to realize its security had accrued; whether the Plaintiff had established grounds for grant of a permanent injunction; whether the Bank was in breach of the in duplum Rule; and who should bear the costs of the suit. 45.On the issue of default, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s breach of the facility terms was undisputed. They argued that the Plaintiff had expressly admitted, both in his pleadings and testimony that he defaulted after losing his employment. while acknowledging the Plaintiff’s financial hardship, they contended that such hardship does not extinguish contractual obligations but constituted a default under the agreed terms of the facility. The Defendant therefore maintained breach of the contractual obligations by the Plaintiff had been clearly established. 46.Regarding restructuring, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s primary complaint stemmed from the Bank’s refusal to accommodate him after he lost his job. They argued that the Plaintiff was, in effect, inviting the Court to rewrite the terms of a valid contract between the parties. In support of this position, they relied on National Bank of Kenya Limited v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & another and the case of Viazi Limited v Standard Chartered Bank [2022] KEHC 13973 (KLR) where the court declined to compel a bank to restructure a loan facility despite Covid-19 related economic hardships. They contended that restructuring is a matter for the parties and not one for judicial intervention. 47.On whether the Bank’s right to realize its security had accrued, the Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff had admitted being in arrears and had demonstrated inability to service the facility. They noted that the Plaintiff’s proposed monthly payment of Kshs. 30,000/= was significantly below the contractual monthly installment of approximately Kshs. 184,779.35 making it unrealistic given the accrued arrears and interest. The Defendant relied on the decision in Brits Freighters Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (K) Ltd [2018] KEHC 856 (KLR) for the proposition that where default is admitted and no approved restructuring arrangement exists, a chargee is entitled to realize its security. They further argued that restraining the bank from exercising its statutory power of sale would defeat the very purpose of securing the facility. 48.The Defendant further submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to establish grounds for grant of a permanent injunction. They argued that an injunction is an equitable remedy, and that a party who admits default cannot rely on equity to restrain a charge from exercising its statutory rights. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff had not demonstrated any legal or equitable basis to warrant such relief. 49.On the issue of the in duplum Rule, the Defendant acknowledged the applicability of Section 44A of the Banking Act but argued that the Plaintiff had not provided evidence demonstrating any breach of the statutory ceiling. They submitted that the outstanding loan balance as at 9th February, 2024, stood at Kshs. 22,053,187.57/= and that supporting loan statement had been provided. 50.Relying on Echuka Country Estate Limited v Housing Finance Company Limited [2026] KEHC 616 (KLR), the Defendant argued that it was not the Court’s role to undertake accounting exercise where a bank has furnished prima facie evidence of indebtedness. They further stated that the Bank remains bound by the in duplum Rule and would not recover amounts beyond the statutory limit. 51.Accordingly, they argued that Plaintiff’s allegations were unsubstantiated and did not negate the Bank’s entitlement to recover the lawful outstanding amount. On costs, the Defendant relied on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and urged the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim with costs 52.In conclusion, the Defendant prayed that the Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed with costs. Analysis and Determination 53.I have carefully considered the pleadings, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties, as well as their respective submissions. In my view, the issues falling for determination are;a.Whether the Plaintiff has established a basis for the grant of the injunctive relief restraining the Defendants from exercising their statutory power of sale over the charged property.b.Whether the 1st Defendant acted in contravention of the in duplum principle under Section 44A of the Banking Act. 54.It is common ground that the Plaintiff obtained a home loan facility from the 1st Defendant in the sum of Kshs. 11,800,000/= secured by a legal charge over Unit Number TB 098A situated on L.R No. 27409 within Greenpark Estate, Machakos County. The Charge dated 5th June, 2017, was produced in evidence by the Defendants. It expressly set out the repayment obligations, applicable interest and the remedies available to the Bank in the event of default, including the exercise of the statutory power of sale. 55.It is equally undisputed that the Plaintiff defaulted in repayment. PW1 admitted during cross-examination, that he first defaulted around September 2019, following which his repayments became irregular, and that the arrears have persisted since 2020. He further acknowledged the Bank’s right to realize the security although he urged the Court to grant him additional time to repay the loan. 56.The Plaintiff’s case rests primarily on the assertion that his default arose from circumstances beyond his control, namely loss of employment and the adverse economic effects occasioned by the Covid-19 pandemic. He further contends that the Bank failed to accommodate him despite his efforts to engage it and submit repayment proposals and that the amount claimed violates the in duplum rule. 57.Conversely, the Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff’s default is admitted and longstanding, that all the statutory prerequisites to realization were complied with, and that no breach of the in duplum principle has been demonstrated. They further contend that the Court cannot rewrite contractual obligations voluntarily entered into by the parties. 58.The first issue for determination is whether the Plaintiff has established a basis for the grant of the injunctive reliefs. The Plaintiff seeks to restrain the Defendants from exercising their statutory power of sale, largely on equitable grounds arising from financial hardships. 59.While this Court does not trivialize the Plaintiff’s circumstances, it is settled that hardship alone does not constitute a legal basis for interfering with a chargee’s accrued statutory rights. 60.The relationship between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is fundamentally contractual, governed by the facility letter and the Charge instrument voluntarily executed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has neither alleged not proved any vitiating factors such as fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or mistake. In the absences of such factors, the court must uphold the sanctity of contract. 61.As was held in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & another [2001] eKLR courts do not rewrite contracts for parties and that parties are bound by the terms voluntarily agreed upon unless vitiating factors are demonstrated. Similarly, once a chargor offers property as security for repayment of a debt, such property becomes a commodity for sale upon default. 62.The evidence before Court demonstrates that the Defendants complied with the statutory requirements preceding realization of the security. The Defendants produced a Statutory Notice under Section 90 of the Land Act dated 10th February, 2022, notifying the Plaintiff of the default and demanding rectification thereof within three months. The notice indicated arrears of Kshs. 3,994,790.85/= and an outstanding balance of Kshs. 15,463,884.67/= as at February 2022. A further notice under Section 96(2) of the Land Act was issued notifying the Plaintiff of the Bank’s intention to exercise the statutory power of sale upon expiry of the notice period. Certificates of postage evidencing dispatch of the notices were also produced before Court. 63.Significantly, service or receipt of the statutory notices was not contested. Indeed, the Plaintiff acknowledged receipt in email correspondence, admitted default and explained his financial challenges. This correspondence not only confirms compliance with statutory procedure but also evidences clear acknowledgement of indebtedness. 64.The Plaintiff’s plea for restructuring, while understandable, cannot be imposed by the court. Restructuring of a facility remains a commercial arrangement dependent on mutual consent between lender and borrower. Courts cannot ordinarily compel a financial institution to restructure a loan facility where the parties have not mutually agreed on such terms. The Court in Viazi Limited v Standard Chartered Bank [2022] KEHC 13973 (KLR), the Court affirmed that it is not for the courts to compel lenders to restructure facilities. 65.In the present case, DW1 testified that the Bank indeed considered the Plaintiff’s restructuring requests but found that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the restructuring criteria particularly regarding demonstration of repayment ability and stable income. Furthermore, the evidence before Court demonstrates that the Plaintiff had remained in default for a prolonged period. DW1 testified that by February 2022 the account had accumulated arrears spanning approximately 23 months. The Plaintiff himself admitted that the arrears remained unresolved since 2020. The Plaintiff also admitted that the repayment proposals he presented to the Bank were never accepted. 66.The Court must balance equities. While the Plaintiff seeks indulgence, the 1st Defendant is entitled to recover funds advanced in the ordinary course of its business. Once default occurred and statutory notices were duly issued, the Bank’s right to realize the security crystallized. The Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the recall or the statutory notices issued by the Defendants. 67.The Defendants also produced a Forced Sale Valuation Report prepared by Advent Valuers Limited dated 9th January, 2023. The report assessed the property at a market value of Kshs. 15,000,000/= and a forced sale value of Kshs. 11,250,000/=. This satisfies the duty imposed under Section 97 of the Land Act which imposes upon a chargee a duty of care to obtain the best reasonably obtainable price before sale of charged property. The Plaintiff did not challenge the propriety, methodology or validity of the valuation report. 68.The Plaintiff’s argument that a sale would still leave an outstanding balance does not defeat the Bank’s statutory rights. Similarly, the proposal for sale by private treaty remains speculative, as no evidence of a willing purchaser or binding agreement was tendered. 69.In the premises, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish any legal or equitable basis to restraint the Defendants from exercising the statutory power of sale over the charged property. 70.The second issue for determination is whether the 1st Defendant breached the in duplum principle under Section 44A of the Banking Act. 71.The principle limits recovery of interest on non-performing loans. The provision essentially bars recovery of interest exceeding the principal amount outstanding when the loan became non-performing. However, the burden of proving breach rests upon the Plaintiff. 72.The Plaintiff asserts that the outstanding amount had risen beyond Kshs. 28 million to Kshs. 32 million thereby offending the in duplum rule. He failed to provide a detailed breakdown or computation. No expert analysis, reconciled statement of accounts, accounting report or computation demonstrating the exact extent to which the statutory threshold had allegedly been breached. 73.By contrast, the Defendants produced detailed loan account statements showing the loan’s progression. DW1 testified that as at February 2024 the outstanding balance stood at approximately Kshs. 22,053,187.57/= while as at May 2025 the balance stood at approximately Kshs. 28,202,172.85/=. DW1 further confirmed that the Bank is bound by Section 44A of the Banking Act and cannot lawfully recover amounts exceeding the permissible threshold. 74.Determining a breach of the in duplum rule requires a precise accounting exercise, including identification of the principal at the time of default, interest accrued thereafter, repayments made and the statutory ceiling. This cannot be inferred from general assertions. 75.As observed in Echuka Country Estate Limited v Housing Finance Company Limited [2026] KEHC 616 (KLR), the Court cannot assume the role of an accountant where the party alleging irregularities has failed to tender sufficient evidence proving the alleged impropriety. 76.Nevertheless, this Court reiterates that the 1st Defendant remains bound by the provisions of Section 44A of the Banking Act and can only recover amounts lawfully recoverable under the statute. Any amounts charged contrary to the statutory limitations would be irrecoverable in law. 77.In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiff failed to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed. 78.On costs, Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs ordinarily follow the event unless the Court for good reason orders otherwise. I find no basis to depart from the general principle. The Defendants shall therefore have the costs of the suit. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026RHODA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of;Court Assistant: WabwireMr. Koech holding brief for Mr. Onyango for StanbicMs. Onyango holding brief for Ms. Nyaboke for the Plaintiff