[2018] KEHC 5286 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 5286 (KLR)

The court found that the injunctive orders sought by the applicants were untenable for two main reasons. First, the property in question (Land Reference Number 2/61, Kilimani Area) was already subject to a registered charge in favour of the 6th respondent (Kenya Commercial Bank), making any further injunctive relief...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 5286 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Mugambi t/a Mugambi & Company Advocates; Applicant: Beatrice Kariuki t/a Beatrice Kariuki & Associates; Respondent: Showcase Properties Limited; Respondent: Francis Muhoro Gachanja; Respondent: Paul Kinutha Gachanja (sued as the administrator of the estate of the late Bilha Njeri Gachanja); Respondent: Newton Chege; Respondent: Ruth Wanjiru Gachanja; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 436 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Legal Fees Recovery, Banking Facilities, Charge and Lien, Guarantees
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Legal Fees Recovery Banking Facilities Charge and Lien Guarantees

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mugambi t/a Mugambi & Company Advocates

Applicant

Beatrice Kariuki t/a Beatrice Kariuki & Associates

Applicant

Showcase Properties Limited

Respondent

Francis Muhoro Gachanja

Respondent

Paul Kinutha Gachanja (sued as the administrator of the estate of the late Bilha Njeri Gachanja)

Respondent

Newton Chege

Respondent

Ruth Wanjiru Gachanja

Respondent

Kenya Commercial Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to injunctive orders restraining dealings with Land Reference Number 2/61, Kilimani Area.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a charge or lien over funds advanced by the 6th respondent to the 1st respondent for recovery of legal fees.
  3. 3 Whether a conservatory order should issue restraining the 6th respondent from disbursing funds to the 1st respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the injunctive orders sought by the applicants were untenable for two main reasons. First, the property in question (Land Reference Number 2/61, Kilimani Area) was already subject to a registered charge in favour of the 6th respondent (Kenya Commercial Bank), making any further injunctive relief over the property redundant and overtaken by events. Second, the 6th respondent had demonstrated that the funds advanced to the 1st respondent were not directly disbursed by the bank but were instead guaranteed by the bank to a third-party lender (Bank One Limited of Mauritius). The applicants failed to provide evidence to contradict this arrangement. As a result, there were...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.