[2001] KEHC 627 (KLR)

[2001] KEHC 627 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs' complaints—namely, the unilateral increase of monthly instalments and the potential for irreparable loss if the properties were sold—did not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court applied the established principles for granting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KEHC 627 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Festus G. Ndungu; Plaintiff: Orieng Afrique Limited; Defendant: National Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 1571 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
T Mbaluto
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Loan Enforcement, Mortgage Disputes, Unilateral Variation of Terms
Source Language
en
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Loan Enforcement Mortgage Disputes Unilateral Variation of Terms

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Festus G. Ndungu

Plaintiff

Orieng Afrique Limited

Plaintiff

National Bank of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established sufficient grounds for the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling the charged properties.
  2. 2 Whether the unilateral increase of monthly instalments by the defendant without notice constitutes a basis for injunctive relief.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' complaints—namely, the unilateral increase of monthly instalments and the potential for irreparable loss if the properties were sold—did not constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court applied the established principles for granting injunctions, noting that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success or irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the defendant.