[2002] KEHC 1181 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 1181 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence showed that the statutory notice was served, the sale was publicly advertised, and there was no proof of fraud—only possible irregularity. The applicants did not demonstrate the ability to redeem the property, nor did they take concrete steps to do so. The court held that any injury resulting from an irregular sale is compensable by damages, not by injunction, especially where the property was offered as security and the respondent is financially capable of paying damages. Furthermore, the applicants' failure to disclose...

Citation
[2002] KEHC 1181 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kitur & Another; Respondent: Standard Chartered Bank; Respondent: Stephen Kiprop Chesire
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Case Number
Civil Suit 62 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
application struck out with costs to the respondents
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Statutory Notice Requirements, Power of Sale, Right of Redemption, Fraud and Bad Faith, Remedies for Irregular Sale
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunctive Relief Statutory Notice Requirements Power of Sale Right of Redemption Fraud and Bad Faith +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kitur & Another

Applicant

Standard Chartered Bank

Respondent

Stephen Kiprop Chesire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit property pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the suit property was irregular or fraudulent due to lack of statutory notice, sale by private treaty, and sale at an undervalue.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' right of redemption was extinguished by the sale and if any remedy lies in damages or equitable relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence showed that the statutory notice was served, the sale was publicly advertised, and there was no proof of fraud—only possible irregularity. The applicants did not demonstrate the ability to redeem the property, nor did they take concrete steps to do so. The court held that any injury resulting from an irregular sale is compensable by damages, not by injunction, especially where the property was offered as security and the respondent is financially capable of paying damages. Furthermore, the applicants' failure to disclose...

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunction is struck out on technicalities and on the merits.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.