https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9659

Kumar v Access Bank (Kenya) PLC (Civil Suit E034 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 9659 (KLR) (6 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9659 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Civil Suit E034 of 2020 RN Nyakundi, J July 6, 2026 Between Patel Sunil Kumar Plaintiff and Access Bank (Kenya) PLC Respondent Ruling 1.Before this Court is Notice of Motion dated 26th day of February 2026, expressed to be brought under Sections 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, and all enabling provisions of the law. The by the Plaintiff who seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.That the Defendant/Respondent, Access Bank (Kenya) PLC (Formerly Transnational Bank (K) Ltd), and/or its responsible officers including the Branch Manager, Nandi Hills Branch, be required to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for a period of six (6) months for being in open and blatant contempt of the orders issued by this Honourable Court in the judgment delivered on 23rd December 2024 and confirmed in the ruling delivered on 19th September 2025.c.That the Defendant/Respondent be compelled to immediately comply with the judgment and orders of this Honourable Court dated 23rd December 2024 and confirmed in the ruling of 19th September 2025.d.That the costs of this application be borne by the Defendant/Respondent.e.That the Court grants any such further orders as may be deemed fit under the circumstances. 2.The application is based on the following grounds: -a.That the Plaintiff is the holder of loan facilities advanced by the Defendant and is the registered proprietor of properties charged as security for the said facilities, including Land Reference Number 7830/220 being his family home in Nandi Hills and Land Reference Number 209/4539 being an apartment at Parklands, Nairobi.b.That this Honourable Court delivered a comprehensive judgment on 23rd December 2024 making specific and binding orders directing the Defendant to comply with certain mandatory requirements before exercising any statutory power of sale.c.That the said judgment, inter alia, suspended the Defendant’s statutory notices for one hundred and twenty (120) days and directed the Defendant to provide a comprehensive statement of indebtedness within thirty (30) days, propose three names of independent auditors from ICPAK within fourteen (14) days, establish a dedicated point of contact, and set up an interest-earning escrow account.d.That despite the clear and mandatory nature of these Court orders, the Defendant wilfully failed, refused, and/or neglected to comply with any of the said orders within the stipulated timeframes or at all.e.That the Plaintiff thereafter filed a Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025 seeking contempt and injunctive orders, which was heard and determined on 19th September 2025.f.That in the ruling delivered on 19th September 2025, this Honourable Court confirmed the Defendant’s non-compliance, held that the orders were lawfully issued and must be complied with, and granted an interim stay of enforcement pending compliance.g.That despite the said ruling confirming non-compliance and expressly directing compliance, the Defendant has continued to wilfully, deliberately, and contumaciously refuse, fail, and/or neglect to comply with the mandatory Court orders.h.That the Plaintiff’s Advocates addressed a formal letter dated 16th October 2025 to the Defendant’s Advocates demanding compliance within seven (7) days, but no response has been received and no compliance has been forthcoming.i.That more than fourteen (14) months have elapsed since the delivery of the judgment on 23rd December 2024 and more than four (4) months since the ruling of 19th September 2025 confirming non-compliance, yet the Defendant continues to defy the orders of this Honourable Court with impunity.j.That the Defendant has had full knowledge of the judgment and orders of this Court but has deliberately chosen to disobey the same.k.That the conduct of the Defendant amounts to wilful disobedience of the Court and constitutes civil contempt.l.That unless the Defendant is compelled by this Court to comply with the orders, it will continue to frustrate the administration of justice and render the judgment and ruling of this Court nugatory.m.That this application is brought in good faith and in the interest of justice. 3.In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Patel Sunil Kumar who deponed as follows:a.That I am the Plaintiff/Applicant herein and the holder of loan facilities advanced by the Defendant/Respondent hence competent to swear this Affidavit.b.That I obtained various loan facilities from the Defendant/Respondent, the subject of this suit, which were secured by charges over my properties being Land Reference Number 7830/220 located in Nandi Hills being my family home and Land Reference Number 209/4539 located at Parklands, Nairobi, together with motor vehicles registration numbers KBR 567P, KBS 648K and KBU 179K.c.That this Honourable Court heard the matter and delivered a comprehensive judgment on 23rd December 2024 making specific and binding ordersd.That despite the clear and mandatory nature of these Court orders and the expiry of all stipulated timeframes, the Defendant wilfully, deliberately, and contumaciously failed, refused, and/or neglected to comply with any of the said orders.e.That I subsequently filed a Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025 seeking, inter alia, orders of contempt and injunctive relief against the Defendant.f.That the said application was heard and determined by this Honourable Court on 19th September 2025, and in a ruling delivered on the same date, this Honourable Court confirmed the Defendant’s non-compliance with the orders issued on 23rd December 2024, found that the declarations and orders had not been complied with, held that the orders were lawfully and legally issued and must be complied with by the parties, and granted an interim order of stay of enforcement and execution of the judgment pending compliance with the Court’s ordersg.That despite the ruling of 19th September 2025 confirming the Defendant’s non-compliance and expressly directing compliance, the Defendant has continued to wilfully, deliberately, and contumaciously refuse, fail, and/or neglect to comply with the mandatory Court orders.h.That my Advocates on record, addressed a formal letter dated 16th October 2025 to the Defendant’s Advocates, demanding compliance with the Court orders as directed in the judgment of 23rd December 2024 and confirmed in the ruling of 19th September 2025, within seven (7) days from the date of the letter.i.That despite the said letter, the Defendant has failed, refused, and/or neglected to comply, and to date no response has been received from the Defendant or their Advocates.j.That it is now more than fourteen (14) months since the delivery of the judgment on 23rd December 2024 and more than four (4) months since the ruling of 19th September 2025 confirming non-compliance, yet the Defendant continues to defy the orders of this Honourable Court with impunity.k.That my remaining properties, namely Land Reference Number 7830/220 which is my family home where I reside with my wife and children, and Land Reference Number 209/4539 which serves as commercial premises for my business, are at imminent risk of disposal without compliance with this Court’s orders.l.That the threatened sale and disposal of my said properties will cause me and my family irreparable harm, hardship and financial loss as we shall be rendered homeless and I shall lose my source of livelihood.m.That the Defendant had full knowledge of the judgment and ruling of this Court but has deliberately chosen to disobey the same.n.That the actions of the Defendant amount to wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court and constitute civil contempt.o.That unless the Defendant is compelled by this Court to comply with its orders, it will continue to frustrate the administration of justice and render the judgment and ruling of this Court nugatory.p.That this application is brought in good faith and in the interest of justice. 4.In response to the application is the replying affidavit sworn by Elisha Nyikuli who avers as follows:a.That I am the Head of Legal & Company Secretariat of the Defendant Access Bank (Kenya) PLC. I am duly authorized by the Defendant to swear this Affidavit on its behalf, I am fully conversant with the facts of this matter, and I am hence competent to swear this Affidavit.b.That I have read the Plaintiff’s Application dated 26th February 2026, and the Supporting Affidavit sworn on even date, and where necessary have had the same explained to me by the Defendant’s Advocates on record. I swear this Replying Affidavit in response thereto.c.That the Plaintiff’s Application is misconceived, premature, and an abuse of the process of this Court, and the same ought to be dismissed with costs for the reasons set out hereinbelow.d.That this Honourable Court delivered its judgment on 23rd December 2024 wherein the following orders were issued: a) “The bank’s statutory notices issued pursuant to the Land Act are hereby suspended for a period of one hundred and twenty days. During this period, the following steps shall be taken: i. The bank shall, within thirty days, provide Mr. Kumar with a comprehensive statement of his indebtedness, clearly showing how each payment was allocated across the various facilities. This statement must include a detailed breakdown of principal, interest, and other charges for each facility. ii. The parties shall, within fourteen days, jointly appoint an independent auditor from a panel of three names to be proposed by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK). This auditor shall: 1. Conduct a comprehensive reconciliation of all fourteen loan facilities advanced to the Plaintiff. 2. Provide a detailed analysis of interest calculations and their application across multiple facilities; 3. Present a clear chronological breakdown of how the initial facility of Kshs. 37,959,065 grew to encompass advances exceeding Kshs 84,696,032; 4. Verify the allocation of all payments made against specific facilities. b) The independent auditor shall submit their report to this Court within ninety (90) days, with copies to both parties. The parties shall have fourteen days to file any objections to the findings. c) The bank shall establish a dedicated point of contact for Mr. Kumar to address any queries arising from the reconciliation process. This arrangement shall ensure that communication regarding the outstanding facilities is clear, consistent, and properly documented. d) Mr. Kumar shall, pending the completion of this process, continue to make monthly payments based on the most recent loan restructuring agreement. These payments shall be held in an interest earning escrow to be established by mutual agreement between the parties. e) Upon completion of the reconciliation process, but not later than ninety days from this judgment, the parties shall present to this Court a joint report detailing: i. The agreed outstanding amount. ii. A structured repayment plan that takes into account both the bank’s right to recover its funds and Mr. Kumar’s ability to maintain his business operations. f) The costs of the reconciliation process and the independent audit shall be borne equally by both parties, reflecting their shared responsibility for the complexity that has characterized this banking relationship. g) The bank shall provide monthly statements to both the Plaintiff and the independent auditor showing how these payments are being applied. h) The costs of this suit shall be borne by each party.”e.That following the delivery of the said Judgment, the Plaintiff, vide a letter dated 5th February 2025, approached the Defendant with an offer to pay the sum of Kenya Shillings Twelve Million (Kshs. 12,000,000/-) as full and final settlement of the outstanding debt.f.That in the said letter, the Plaintiff expressly stated that he was willing to settle the matter amicably and, critically, that there was no need to incur the additional expenses of appointing auditors to undertake an audit and reconciliation process, which the Plaintiff himself acknowledged would take longer than the period provided by the Court.g.That the foregoing proposal, together with the Plaintiff’s subsequent conduct, demonstrates a clear and unequivocal intention on the Plaintiff’s part to depart from and compromise the strict compliance framework established by the Judgment dated 23rd December 2024, in a manner calculated to favour the Plaintiff’s interests.h.That in good faith, the Defendant engaged with the Plaintiff’s proposal and, vide a letter dated 13th May 2025, responded by proposing that the Plaintiff settle the outstanding debt by way of a full and final payment of Kenya Shillings Twenty Million (Kshs. 20,000,000/-). The Plaintiff declined this proposal and ceased further engagement with the Defendant.i.That in a sudden reversal, the Plaintiff thereafter filed the application dated 24th July 2025 seeking injunctive orders and an order to show cause why the Defendant should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Judgment dated 23rd December 2024.j.That the said Application was heard and determined by this Honourable Court on 19th September 2025, wherein the Court issued an order of stay on an interim basis to deal with the pending compliance issues arising from the Judgment.k.That the Court did not find the Defendant guilty of contempt, the Ruling was interlocutory in nature and did not finally determine the contempt question. The Plaintiff’s present application seeks, impermissibly, to treat that interlocutory ruling as though it were a final finding of contemptl.That pursuant to the Ruling of 19th September 2025, the Defendant took positive steps towards compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court as follows: a. The Defendant provided the Plaintiff with comprehensive statements of his indebtedness, which statement the Plaintiff collected at the Nandi Hills Branch from Mr. Gideon Kirwa, the Branch Manager, who was simultaneously appointed as the Plaintiff’s dedicated point of contact in accordance with Order (c) of the Judgment dated 23rd December 2024. (Annexed herein and marked “ABK-3” are the said loan statements). b. With respect to the joint appointment of an independent ICPAK auditor and the establishment of an escrow account, the Defendant avers that these steps were not taken because the Plaintiff, by his own conduct, elected to depart from the Court-ordered reconciliation framework. Specifically, the Plaintiff, through his letter dated 5th February 2025, expressly stated that there was no need to appoint auditors or undertake the reconciliation process, and instead proposed a negotiated settlement. The Defendant engaged with this position in good faith, and the parties thereafter entered into ongoing settlement negotiations. In the premises, the Plaintiff cannot now be heard to complain of non-compliance with a process he himself sought to abandon.m.That the conduct of the Plaintiff in initiating and sustaining settlement negotiations from February 2025 through to the date of this application constitutes a clear and unequivocal election to depart from the strict compliance framework established by the Judgment of 23rd December 2024. By proposing to settle for Kshs. 12,000,000/- and expressly disavowing the need for an independent audit, the Plaintiff represented to the Defendant that the Court-ordered reconciliation process was not to be pursued. The Defendant relied on this representation and engaged in good faith settlement discussions for a period exceeding twelve (12) months. In law, the Plaintiff is estopped from resiling from this position and simultaneously holding the Defendant to strict compliance with the very framework he sought to circumvent.n.That I am informed by the Defendant’s Advocates on record which information I believe to be true that the doctrine of approbation and reprobation bars a party from adopting inconsistent positions in the same matter. The Plaintiff cannot on the one hand accept the benefit of the Defendant’s forbearance from enforcement, which forbearance was extended precisely because of the parties’ ongoing settlement negotiations, while on the other hand characterizing that same forbearance as contempt of Court. The two positions are mutually inconsistent and this Court should not permit such conduct.o.That upon collecting the said loan statements, the Plaintiff, in addition, presented himself at the Defendant’s Nandi Hills Branch in the company of one Hillary Koech on 3rd December 2025, and informed the Defendant that he had identified Mr. Koech as a prospective purchaser and was willing to sell the charged property known as IR No. 65296 Nandi Hills Town to him at a consideration of Kshs. 15,000,000/-.p.That I am informed by the Defendant’s Advocates on record, which information I believe to be true that the Defendant avers that an order of contempt is equitable and discretionary in nature. A party who seeks such relief must themselves have acted in good faith and in compliance with the orders of the Court. The Plaintiff has made no monthly payments as expressly required under Order (v) of the Judgment, has attempted to deal with charged property outside the Court-ordered framework, and has actively sought to circumvent the reconciliation process he now purports to enforce.q.That despite the Plaintiff’s approach on 3rd December 2025, neither the Plaintiff nor Mr. Hillary Koech followed up on the proposed purchase of the said property, notwithstanding that the Defendant remained in continuous engagement with the Plaintiff, both in person at the Nandi Hills Branch and by telephone, with the Plaintiff consistently reiterating his position that there was no need to appoint auditors or pursue the reconciliation process ordered by this Court.r.That most recently, on 16th March 2026, the Defendant’s representative communicated to the Plaintiff that the Bank was agreeable to a full and final settlement of the outstanding debt under account number 000090059 at the sum of Kenya Shillings Seven Million (Kshs. 7,000,000/-). The Defendant avers that this is plainly not the conduct of a party engaged in willful and contumacious defiance of Court orders.s.That in light of the above, the Defendant avers that it has taken substantive steps towards compliance with the orders of this Honourable Court, having provided the Plaintiff with a comprehensive statement of his indebtedness and established a dedicated point of contact. The remaining steps, the joint ICPAK auditor appointment and the escrow account, were not completed by reason of the Plaintiff’s own election to abandon the Court-ordered reconciliation framework in favour of settlement negotiations which the Plaintiff himself initiated and sustained.t.That from all the foregoing, it is in fact the Plaintiff who is in breach of the Judgment dated 23rd December 2024. Order (d) thereof expressly directed that: “Mr. Kumar shall, pending the completion of this process, continue to make monthly payments based on the most recent loan restructuring agreement. These payments shall be held in an interest-earning escrow account to be established by mutual agreement between the parties.”u.That the Defendant avers that since the delivery of the Judgment on 23rd December 2024 to date, the Plaintiff has not made any payments whatsoever towards reduction of the outstanding loan as demonstrated by the Plaintiff’s loan account statement annexed herein demonstrating zero payments since December 2024. I am informed by the Defendant’s advocates on record that a party who seeks to hold another in contempt must themselves come to this Court with clean hands and in compliance with all obligations placed upon them by the selfsame judgment. The Plaintiff has manifestly failed to do so.v.That whereas the Plaintiff places great emphasis on the lapse of time since the Judgment of 23rd December 2024, suggesting that fourteen (14) months of alleged non-compliance constitutes contempt. The Defendant denies this characterization and avers as follows: a. The period from December 2024 to September 2025 was consumed by the parties’ own settlement negotiations, initiated by the Plaintiff himself. The Defendant cannot be in contempt for a period during which the Plaintiff was actively seeking to depart from the Court's framework; b. Following the September 2025 Ruling, the Defendant took positive steps to comply by providing the loan statements and designating a point of contact. These steps were overtaken by the parties’ resumed negotiations, in which the Defendant as recently as 16th March 2026 communicated a settlement offer of Kshs. 7,000,000/. This is not the conduct of a party in willful and contumacious defiance of Court orders.w.That for all the reasons set out herein, this application is premature, misconceived and an abuse of the process of this Court for the following distinct reasons: a. The contempt question was already ventilated before this Court in the application dated 24th July 2025 and determined on 19th September 2025. The Plaintiff raises no new facts that were not, or could not have been, placed before the Court at that hearing. This application is therefore an attempt to re-litigate a matter already determined, which constitutes an abuse of process; b. The Defendant has not taken any steps to realize the charged securities since the Ruling of 19th September 2025. There is no overt act of contempt, the Plaintiff’s application is founded entirely on the passage of time, which by itself cannot constitute civil contempt in the absence of a willful and deliberate act of disobedience; c. The parties have been engaged in active settlement negotiations throughout the period complained of, the most recent offer having been communicated on 16th March 2026. It is unconscionable for the Plaintiff to accept the Bank’s continued forbearance from enforcement as a negotiating benefit while simultaneously characterizing that same forbearance as contempt; and d. The Plaintiff himself is in breach of the Judgment, having made no monthly payments since December 2024, and having attempted to deal with the charged property unilaterally. He does not come to this Court with clean hands and is not entitled to the equitable and discretionary relief he seeks.x.That in the premises, the Defendant prays that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Application dated 26th February 2026 with costs to the Defendant/Respondent. 5.I have considered the motion, affidavit in support and replying affidavit touching on this long protracted litigation between the bank and its customer. I can see now once again a motion has been filed on contempt proceedings on matters which do not deserve that kind of procedural litigation. The question is, why is the Respondent bank not collaborating with the customer in providing the necessary information on the mortgagee/mortgagor agreements? The banks suffers no prejudice or injustice in providing the necessary information in which they have the controlling repository instruments. Decision 6.In Kenya’s legal system civil contempt involves the willful disobedience of a Court order where the primary purpose is to secure compliance or punish the contemnor. The Courts in Kenya when a necessity has arisen strictly upholds the rule of the law that all Court orders must be obeyed even if they are believed to be wrong. In one of the persuasive authority by the Supreme Court of Zambia in Victor K. Sishemo v. Oscar Sikazwe (Supreme Court, 2020): The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that whether a Court order is given wrongly or not, it must be obeyed. Losing parties who intentionally employ strategies to circumvent or ignore the final judgment can be penalized in contempt and assessed costs. 7.In our very own jurisdiction, the High Court punishes the disobedient of Court orders under Section 5 of the Judicature Act Cap 8 Laws of Kenya. The Courts have consistently ruled that the deliberate, intentional violation of a lawful order undermines the rule of law and can result in severe penalties including fines or upto to six (6) months civil imprisonment. As can be seen below, both the High Court and Court so equal status have established clear actionable case law on contempt by disobedient parties:Makokha v. Mwananchi Credit Ltd & another [2025] KEHC 7919 The Details: The respondents intentionally refused to release a motor vehicle as directed by a trial Court. Ruling: The High Court found the respondents in contempt of Court, directing them to purge their contempt within seven days, failing which a Notice to Show Cause would issue for their committal to civil jail. Hardi Enterprises Ltd v. (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 16561 The Details: Respondents persistently failed to satisfy a Court decree and willfully disobeyed the orders and judgment of the Court. Ruling: The Court reiterated that deliberate disobedience of its orders constitutes civil contempt, and upheld its power to enforce compliance and punish contemnors to maintain the dignity and authority of the Judiciary. Lorkoyo & Another v. Lorkoyo [2025] KEELc 4835 The Details: Appellants were accused of willfully disobeying previous Environment and Land Court orders. Ruling: The ELC emphasized that contempt is quasi-criminal in nature and requires a high standard of proof. To be cited for contempt, it must be proved that the order was clear, the contemnor had knowledge of it, and the disobedience was willful. Mathenge v. Munyao (Civil Appeal 112 of 2007) [2025] KEHC 2057 The Details: An appellant blatantly disregarded Court orders to offer property as security pending the hearing and determination of an appeal. Ruling: The High Court held that it is the unqualified obligation of every person to obey a Court order until it is discharged, even if the party believes the order is irregular or flawed. 8.The essential conditions for a contempt citation for a party who has disobeyed a Court judgment, order or ruling must be determined by establishing the following elements:a.Clear Order: The Court order must be unambiguous and capable of being understood.b.Personal Service: The contemnor must have been personally served with the Court order.c.Penal Notice: The served order or decree must be endorsed with a penal notice explicitly warning the party that disobedience will attract penal consequences (e.g., jail or fines).d.Willful Disobedience: The failure to obey must be deliberate and intentional, not caused by circumstances genuinely beyond the party's control. 9.It is trite law that Courts across the country possess inherent powers to enforce the orders through contempt proceedings and the operative framework is Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act. The Court in KHRC vs AG & Anor faced with similar circumstances like the one before this Court made the following observations:“Contempt is the willful disobedience or disregard of a Court orders, judgments decrees or directions. It is therefore the offence of being disobedient or disCourteous towards Courts and their officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the Court. Contempt manifests itself in the willful and intentional disregard of or disrespect for the authority of the Courts, a behavior that is regarded illegal because does not obey or respect the authority of the Courts and their processes and tends to lower the dignity of the Courts." 10.This litigation is not counter demanding by either of the parties with regard to who has committed a greater offence of contempt than the other. That is the kind of argument being raised in the replying affidavit by the Respondent Bank which is neither here nor there. In consumer rights law cases involving a party with crucial information often hinge on the constitutional right to information and unfair trade practices. When the bank who is the Defendant/Respondent to these proceedings withhold material facts like hidden fees, tariffs or terms of interest, it violates consumer economic interest of the Applicant. That is the fundamental question in this matter. The Court in R vs Devon County Council ex parte P. Baker, [1995] 1 ALL ER, stated as follows:“….it is the interest rather than the benefit that is the substance of the expectation. In other words, the expectation arises not because the claimant asserts any specific right to a benefit but rather because his interest in it is one that the law holds protected by the requirements of procedural fairness; the law recognizes that the interest cannot properly be withdrawn (or denied) without the claimant being given an opportunity to comment and without the authority communicating rational grounds for any adverse decision”. 11.It is therefore clear in this mortgagee/mortgagor contract the Defendant bank action of depriving the Applicant access to certain crucial information is a threat to his consumer rights of fulfilling his part of the bargain of settling the outstanding loan amount as ordered by this Court. I entirely do not agree with the Defendant bank that the Court should first examine whether the Plaintiff has made his commitments fashioned in the same judgment before it can be held to be in contempt of a Court order. 12.For those reasons, I hold that the validity or legality of the Court orders issued by this very same Court are not subject to challenge by the Defendant/Respondent bank until they have demonstrated compliance or applied for their variation as per the law established. This Court is therefore not convinced that contempt proceedings against the Defendant bank should not be taken to its ultimate conclusion in the form of making a declaration that part of the previous Court orders were violated and the mitigation is not the replying affidavit to purge that contempt. 13.In the case of Republic v. Liberty Press Limited and others (1968) GLR 123 the Court faced with the same scenario like the instant case ordained itself as follows:“The important position of the judiciary in any democratic set-up must be fully appreciated. Performing, as they are called upon to do, the sacred duty of holding the scales between the executive power of the State and the subject and protecting the fundamental liberties of the individual, the Courts must not only enjoy the respect and confidence of the people among whom they operate, but also must have the means to protect that respect and confidence in order to maintain their authority. For this reason any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere in any way with the course of justice becomes an offence not only against the Court but against the entire community which the Courts serve." 14.I just want to remind the Defendant bank that the power of the Court to punish for contempt is inherent and no manner of excuses or justification can force the Court to abandon in performing its duties of upholding the rule of law. The Defendant bank when it became necessary to exercise its power of sale it approached the Court of law. In my view, the Defendant’s bank actions were and are calculated to prejudice the Applicant/Plaintiff as outlined in the decisions pronounced by this Court. The factual basis upon which the Defendant bank has been cited for contempt are very clear from the decisions of this Court and if it was aggrieved they had the opportunity to seek for review or appeal to a Superior Court. There is lack of remorse or repentance on the part of the contemnor Defendant bank displayed in the replying affidavit and all what they did is to aggravate the situation which call for this Court to hold them in contempt of Court orders. 15.For those reasons, I find the Branch Managers of Access Bank Kenya Nandi Branch is a ringleader contemnor and is therefore found to be in contempt with Court orders and therefore shall be arrested by the Court Bailiff of Eldoret High Court facilitated by the National Police Service of Eldoret Central Police Station to be presented on 15th of July 2026 for sentencing. It is so ordered. DATED, DELIVERED AND PUBLISHED VIA CTS AT ELDORET THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2026.…………………………………R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE