[2011] KECA 100 (KLR)

[2011] KECA 100 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of an arguable appeal, as he admitted to executing a charge for Kshs. 10 million. The Court further held that the intended appeal would not be rendered nugatory by the sale of the property because damages would be an adequate remedy, given the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KECA 100 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis M. Mutua; Respondent: Southern Credit Banking Corporation
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 131 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Statutory Power of Sale, Guarantees and Sureties, Adequacy of Damages
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunctions Statutory Power of Sale Guarantees and Sureties 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis M. Mutua

Applicant

Southern Credit Banking Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to justify the grant of an injunction pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant if the property is sold.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the existence of an arguable appeal, as he admitted to executing a charge for Kshs. 10 million. The Court further held that the intended appeal would not be rendered nugatory by the sale of the property because damages would be an adequate remedy, given the property had a known commercial value and the respondent bank was capable of paying damages. Additionally, the Court agreed with the High Court that no injunction could be granted since no such prayer was made in the plaint. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.