https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12707

Eleete Interiors Limited v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited (Civil Appeal E362 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 12707 (KLR) (Civ) (30 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12707 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Appeal E362 of 2024 WA Okwany, J July 30, 2026 Between Eleete Interiors Limited Appellant and Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited Respondent Ruling 1.This ruling concerns the Notice of Motion dated 8th October 2025 in which the Appellant/Applicant seeks principally orders that the Respondent be compelled to furnish accounts relating to the Asset Financing Agreement and the sale, by private treaty, of motor vehicle registration number KDK 939X (BMW) and a declaration that, following the said sale, the Applicant no longer owes the Respondent any monies. 2.The Respondent opposed the application through the Grounds of Opposition dated 18th November 2025, where it contends that the Motion is incompetent, improperly invokes Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeks to introduce fresh causes of action outside the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, contravenes Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act and amounts to an abuse of the court process. 3.Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions. Applicant's Case 4.The Applicant submitted that the Respondent sold the suit motor vehicle by private treaty without valuation, without public participation and contrary to existing court orders. It argued that in the interests of justice, the Respondent ought to be compelled to render a full statement of accounts relating to the financing facility and the sale proceeds. 5.Reliance was placed on Order 20 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as Oracle Productions Limited vs. Decapture Limited & 3 Others [2014] eKLR, where the court discussed the importance of discovery and production of documents. The Applicant also cited Concord Insurance Co. Ltd vs. NIC Bank Ltd [2013] eKLR, arguing that production of documents facilitates a fair determination of disputes. Respondent's Case 6.The Respondent argued that the Motion is fatally defective because Order 20 applies only to original suits commenced by plaint seeking accounts and has no application to interlocutory appellate proceedings. 7.It further submitted that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act requires fresh claims to be instituted before the court of competent original jurisdiction. It contended that the orders sought constitute fresh substantive causes of action which were never pleaded or determined before the subordinate court. 8.It was the Respondent’s case that this Court, sitting as an appellate court, cannot exercise original jurisdiction by entertaining new claims. It noted that no Memorandum or Record of Appeal has been filed despite considerable lapse of time, rendering the present application an abuse of process. 9.The Respondent relied on several authorities including Said (Legal Representative of the Estate of Saad Abdallah) vs. Ikumbu [2024] KECA 69 (KLR) and Kayuludi vs. West FM Media Ltd & 3 Others [2025] KEHC 5806 (KLR). Analysis and Determination 10.I have carefully considered the pleadings filed herein and the parties’ submissions. I find that the main issues arising for determination are whether the application is competently before this Court under Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules and whether the Court can grant the substantive reliefs sought in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 11.The Applicant invoked Order 20 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to seek accounts. A plain reading of the provision shows that it applies to suits commenced by plaint where an account is specifically sought or forms part of the relief claimed. The order contemplates proceedings before a court exercising original jurisdiction. 12.The present proceedings, on the other hand, arise from an interlocutory application within an appeal. The Court is therefore exercising appellate jurisdiction which means that its mandate is confined to determining issues arising from the decision appealed against and the record before the subordinate court. I find that it is not open to parties to introduce fresh substantive claims that were never litigated in the lower court. 13.The Applicant seeks not merely production of documents but substantive orders compelling rendition of accounts and a declaration that no monies are owed after the sale of the motor vehicle. It is my finding that these are substantive remedies requiring pleadings, evidence and factual determination. Such reliefs fall within the jurisdiction of a court exercising original jurisdiction and cannot properly be introduced through an interlocutory application in a pending appeal. 14.I am persuaded by the Respondent's submission that the authorities cited by the Applicant concerning discovery and production of documents relate to trial procedures and do not enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Equally persuasive is the principle emphasized in Said vs. Ikumbu (supra) and Kamotho vs. Wamunya [2025] KEELRC 954 (KLR) that an appellate court determines matters arising from the record before it and does not entertain fresh causes of action. 15.I further note that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act requires every suit to be instituted before the court of competent original jurisdiction. I find that the declaratory and accounting reliefs now sought were neither pleaded nor determined before the subordinate court and that granting them, at this stage, would effectively convert this appellate court into a court of first instance, contrary to the statutory framework. 16.The Respondent has also pointed out that despite obtaining earlier conditional orders, the Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with those orders nor with the filing of a Memorandum or Record of Appeal. While that issue alone may not determine the present Motion, it reinforces the conclusion that the present application is an attempt to litigate fresh issues outside the appeal instead of prosecuting the appeal itself. 17.I therefore find that the Motion is incompetent and constitutes an abuse of the court process. 18.Accordingly, I make the following orders:a.The Notice of Motion dated 8th October 2025 is hereby struck out for being incompetent.b.The Applicant is at liberty, if so advised, to pursue any substantive claim for accounts before a court of competent original jurisdiction.c.The costs of the application shall be borne by the Applicant.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026HON W A OKWANYJUDGE