[2015] KEHC 7820 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7820 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had not advanced ample grounds to justify the grant of the interlocutory orders sought, including the deposit of funds in court or escrow, restraint of the defendant from blocking liquidation, or the appointment of a joint consultant for account reporting. The court adopted its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 7820 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Erdemann Property Limited; Defendant: Development Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 108 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Escrow Accounts, Mortgage Agreements, Joint Accounting, Liquidation Process
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Banking and Finance Interlocutory Injunctions Escrow Accounts Mortgage Agreements Joint Accounting Liquidation Process

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erdemann Property Limited

Plaintiff

Development Bank of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chamber Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the defendant to deposit Kshs.279,680,698.33 in court or in an escrow account pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be restrained from blocking the commencement of the liquidation process under the Mortgage Cooperation agreement dated 15/10/2013.
  3. 3 Whether a joint account report should be prepared and adopted by the court regarding the disputed account balances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not advanced ample grounds to justify the grant of the interlocutory orders sought, including the deposit of funds in court or escrow, restraint of the defendant from blocking liquidation, or the appointment of a joint consultant for account reporting. The court adopted its reasoning from a substantially similar application in HCCC No. 107 of 2015, noting that the applications were heard together and the issues were materially the same. As the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for interlocutory relief, the application was dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The Chamber Summons application dated 2nd April 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant/Respondent.