[2006] KEHC 919 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 919 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had repaid the loan for which L.R. No. 10827/2 was provided as security, and that the security had been substituted and subsequently discharged. The defendant did not contest these facts, having failed to file any response. On a prima facie basis, the court held that there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 919 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jackson Kiprotich Arap Kibor; Defendant: Agricultural Finance Corporation
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 258 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff; costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Security for Loans, Discharge of Charge, Loan Repayment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunctions Security for Loans Discharge of Charge Loan Repayment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Kiprotich Arap Kibor

Plaintiff

Agricultural Finance Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with L.R. No. 10827/2 pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has any legal right to sell or otherwise deal with the suit property after the loan was repaid and the security discharged.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had repaid the loan for which L.R. No. 10827/2 was provided as security, and that the security had been substituted and subsequently discharged. The defendant did not contest these facts, having failed to file any response. On a prima facie basis, the court held that there was no justifiable cause for the defendant to take steps to realise the security. Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from advertising, selling, transferring, alienating, or otherwise dealing with the property pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff; costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the defendant from advertising, selling, transferring, alienating, or otherwise dealing with L.R. No. 10827/2 until the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The costs of the application dated 10th May 2006 are awarded to the plaintiff.