[2018] KEHC 9639 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9639 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant's appeal was not frivolous, particularly in light of his allegation that he was not served with the application for dismissal for want of prosecution. The court noted that an injunction had previously been in place restraining the sale of the suit property and that the appellant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9639 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: James Kiminda Ndegwa; Respondent: Housing Finance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 5 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
injunction granted for six months pending appeal
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Injunction Pending Appeal, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Reinstatement of Suit, Mortgage Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunction Pending Appeal Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Reinstatement of Suit Mortgage Disputes

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kiminda Ndegwa

Appellant

Housing Finance Co. Ltd

Respondent

Kenya Railways Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an injunction pending appeal to restrain the sale of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's appeal against refusal to reinstate the suit has merit.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's appeal was not frivolous, particularly in light of his allegation that he was not served with the application for dismissal for want of prosecution. The court noted that an injunction had previously been in place restraining the sale of the suit property and that the appellant could suffer irreparable loss if the property was sold before the appeal was heard. However, the court was also concerned about the appellant's delay in prosecuting the original suit and therefore limited the injunction to a period of six months, within which the appellant was required to ensure the appeal was heard. The balance of convenience favored granting a limited...

Court Disposition

injunction granted for six months pending appeal

Orders

  • An injunction is granted for six months from the date of the ruling restraining the 1st respondent from selling the suit property by public auction or private treaty.
  • Before expiry of six months, the appellant shall ensure that the appeal is heard.