Githiomi v Sidian Bank & another (Civil Appeal E035 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4708 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 April 2026) (Ruling)

Githiomi v Sidian Bank & another (Civil Appeal E035 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 4708 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 April 2026) (Ruling)

The application is not res judicata as it seeks different reliefs from the previous application. The order appealed from is a negative order, and the subject motor vehicle has already been sold by public auction. Therefore, an injunction to restrain the sale is futile, and any loss can be compensated by damages. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 4708 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Harry Mwangi Githiomi; 1st Respondent: Sidian Bank; 2nd Respondent: Gerald Thuita Mutahi /A Startruck Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 April 2026
Case Number
Civil Appeal E035 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Res Judicata, Auction Sales, Abuse of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Injunctions Stay of Execution Res Judicata Auction Sales Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Mwangi Githiomi

Appellant

Sidian Bank

1st Respondent

Gerald Thuita Mutahi /A Startruck Auctioneers

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for injunction pending appeal is res judicata
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of injunction pending appeal
  3. 3 Whether injunctive relief can issue against a non-party

Ratio Decidendi

The application is not res judicata as it seeks different reliefs from the previous application. The order appealed from is a negative order, and the subject motor vehicle has already been sold by public auction. Therefore, an injunction to restrain the sale is futile, and any loss can be compensated by damages. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appellant’s application dated 7.2.2025 is dismissed for want of merit with costs to the respondents.