https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9153
The application turned on compliance with the earlier order of 19 June 2025 requiring deposit of the decretal amount. If that deposit had been made, the court would maintain status quo and allow only release of the motor vehicles because the decretal amount would provide sufficient security; if not, the application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEHC 9153 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Cyrus Tea Kenya Limited; Respondent: Sidian Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E660 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Restraining Orders, Release of Motor Vehicles, and Statement of Accounts
- Outcome
- Application conditionally allowed or dismissed depending on compliance with the order of 19 June 2025.
- Judges
- ["LP Kassan"]
- Legal Topics
- Stay Pending Appeal, Security for Decretal Amount, Status Quo Orders, Release of Attached Motor Vehicles, Additional Evidence on Appeal, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Cyrus Tea Kenya Limited
Appellant
Sidian Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Restraining Orders, Release of Motor Vehicles, and Statement of Accounts
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to restraining orders against sale of motor vehicles pending appeal
- 2 Whether the applicant had complied with the earlier conditional order requiring deposit of the decretal amount
- 3 Whether the court should order release of the motor vehicles on the basis of existing security
Ratio Decidendi
The application turned on compliance with the earlier order of 19 June 2025 requiring deposit of the decretal amount. If that deposit had been made, the court would maintain status quo and allow only release of the motor vehicles because the decretal amount would provide sufficient security; if not, the application failed for want of security and for inconsistency with the existing conditional order. The prayer for statement of accounts was rejected because no exceptional circumstances were shown to justify its admission at appellate stage.
Court Disposition
Application conditionally allowed or dismissed depending on compliance with the order of 19 June 2025.
Orders
- If the decretal amount has been deposited in court, the application is allowed only to the extent of release of the attached motor vehicles and status quo is maintained.
- If the decretal amount has not been deposited, the application is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA NAIROBI** **CIVIL APPELLATE DIVISION** **HCCA E660 OF 2025** **CYRUS TEA KENYA LIMITED……………………….….…..APPELLANT** **VERSUS** **SIDIAN BANK LIMITED ………………….………………..RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The motion before me seeks restraining orders for sale of several motor vehicles by the respondent, statement of accounts and release of the said motor vehicles to the Applicant on the basis that the Appellant has not breached the agreement it entered with the respondent. The history of this matter is that the lower Court exposed the Appellant to grave danger by vacating stay orders paving way for sale of the aforesaid motor vehicles. Aggrieved with the lower Court decision, the appellant filed an appeal which is said to have high chances of success. The application is vehemently opposed by the respondent who has relied on basic principles of stay and I shall not repeat them here. 2. This Court notes that there is an order requiring the Appellant to deposit a decretal amount pending the determination of this matter. This order has not been set aside. At this juncture, I cannot be certain that the Appellant proceeded to deposit the decretal amount and if my assumption is that this order was complied with, then the application is allowed in terms of maintaining status quo since there would be already a proper security. If by any chance the conditional order has not been complied with, then the application will be dismissed with costs. 3. The finality of my decision depends on the compliance with my order dated the 19th day of June 2025. The application will only be allowed if the decretal amount has already been deposited in court and in this case, what will be allowed shall be the release of the attached motor vehicles only because the decretal amount will be sufficient security. In that case, there will be no need for the Respondent to continue holding the Respondent’s motor vehicles. On the prayer for statement of accounts, additional evidence can only be admitted by an Appellate Court in exceptional circumstances. The Appellant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to warrant this Court to grant an order for statement of accounts. The Appellant must have had an opportunity to seek for this prayer at the lower Court and cannot do so at this stage. 4. If there is noncompliance with the conditional stay issued above, the application stands dismissed with costs because there is no security nor is there an application to vary the orders issued on the 19th day of June 2025. This is because Court orders must be obeyed and decisions by Judicial officers must always be consistent. There is no way that this Court can issue an order that contradicts an order earlier issued. 5. Orders issued accordingly. **DATED, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AND SIGNED ON THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026** **HON L P KASSAN** **JUDGE**