[2019] KEHC 10230 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 10230 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as he admitted to guaranteeing the loan and charging his property as security. There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the guarantee or security documents. Statutory notices were properly served to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 10230 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Evans Odhiambo Akumu; Respondent: Keysian Auctioneers; Respondent: Groffins SGB Kenya Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Guarantee Liability, Statutory Power of Sale, Loan Default, Adequacy of Damages
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunctive Relief Guarantee Liability Statutory Power of Sale Loan Default Adequacy of Damages

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Odhiambo Akumu

Plaintiff

Keysian Auctioneers

Respondent

Groffins SGB Kenya Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from selling the charged property pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as he admitted to guaranteeing the loan and charging his property as security. There was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in the guarantee or security documents. Statutory notices were properly served to the plaintiff. The property in question was commercial, not matrimonial, and the plaintiff's spouse had consented to the charge. The court held that damages would be an adequate remedy if the property was sold. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction, and the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 23rd November 2018 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
  • Parties to take directions for hearing of the main suit.