Meditec Systems Limited v Plaza Magnetic Resonance Imaging Limited & 2 others (Civil Cause E11 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7468 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling)

Meditec Systems Limited v Plaza Magnetic Resonance Imaging Limited & 2 others (Civil Cause E11 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7468 (KLR) (29 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7468 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisumu Civil Cause E11 of 2025 A Mabeya, J May 29, 2026 Between Meditec Systems Limited Plaintiff and Plaza Magnetic Resonance Imaging Limited 1st Defendant Victoria Blue Auctioneers 2nd Defendant and Shiloah Investments Limited Interested Party Ruling 1.By a Motion on notice dated 29/5/2025, the Plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from removing or interfering with the various medical equipment set out in the Motion which the plaintiff claimed to belong to it. The Motion was brought, inter-alia, under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2.The grounds for the Motion were set out in the body thereof and the supporting affidavit of Rajvinder Singh Hans sworn on 29/5/2025. These were that the plaintiff was the owner of the following medical equipment; CT Scanner, Ultra Sound, UPS and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scan (Siemens Somatom Sensation 16 Machine) (hereinafter “the said equipment”) 3.That pursuant to some Corporate Agreement for the purchase of the said equipment, the plaintiff gave an unconditional guarantee to Prime Bank Ltd undertaking to indemnify the Bank against any default by the 1st defendant. The bank was to debit the plaintiff’s account with the amount outstanding as at the date of such default by the 1st defendant. 4.That the 1st defendant subsequently defaulted and the bank debited the Plaintiff’s account to settle the outstanding amount. That the plaintiff had since learnt that the interested party, as landlord, had distrained the said equipment for rent arrears on the 1st defendant’s premises in which the said equipment was stored. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd defendant had sold the same at a public auction and the purchaser was in the process of removing the same from the premises of the interested party to some unknown location. 5.That the purported sale, intended removal and carting away of the said equipment was wrongful and unlawful contrary to law, capricious and oppressive and a violation of the Plaintiff’s property rights. That the matter had been reported to the Central Police Station vide OB No. 39/23/5/2025. 6.That the plaintiff had an arguable case with good chances of succeeding as the said equipment had nothing to do with the rent arrears to the interested party. That the orders sought should therefore be granted. 7.The interested party opposed the Motion through the replying affidavit of Suku Elisha Sharwin, sworn on 18/6/2025. He denied the existence of any tenancy relationship between it and the 1st defendant. It also denied the 2nd defendant being its agent. It therefore prayed that its name be struck out of the suit. 8.The 1st defendant opposed the Motion vide the replying affidavit of Alfred Odhiambo Otieno, its director, sworn on 6/1/2026. He swore that the said equipment was strange, unknown and unfamiliar to the 1st defendant. That it had never owned, possessed, used, leased, housed or exercised any possessory rights over the same. 9.That the said equipment was said to have been removed from a premises in Kisumu which did not belong to the 1st defendant. That the distress was against one West Kenya Diagnostic & Imaging Ltd. That the 1st defendant has never been a tenant of the interested party or accrued any rent arrears at the alleged premises. That it had not given any instructions to the 2nd defendant to undertake the alleged public auction. That in the premises, the plaintiff’s claim was erroneous and misconceived. 10.The 2nd defendant did not oppose the application but he filed a defence in which he denied the Plaintiff’s claim in toto. He explained that he had been appointed by West Kenya Diagnostic & Imaging Ltd to undertake the auction. He had widely advertised the sale of the said equipment, sold the same and released the proceeds to West Kenya Diagnostic & Imaging Ltd. 11.The parties filed their respective submissions which were highlighted by learned counsel. It was submitted for the plaintiff that it was an owner of the said equipment through the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 10/8/2018. That the defendants were guilty of the tort of conversion. That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if the orders are not granted. That the letters exchanged between the parties disclosed a tenancy relationship between the interested party and the 1st defendant. 12.For the 1st defendant, it was submitted that there was no tenancy agreement with the interested party. No evidence of it giving instructions to the 2nd defendant. That the Hire Purchase Agreement was a subject of another case. That there was no prima facie case established. 13.For the interested party, it was submitted that no proclamation was produced to show that the interested party gave any instructions to the 2nd defendant to proclaim the said equipment. The advertisement produced showed that the 2nd defendant was acting for an undisclosed principal and not the interested party. No legal or equitable interest in the property had been disclosed by the plaintiff. 14.I have carefully considered the rival contestations of the parties. This is an injunction application. The principles applicable are well known in Giella vs Cassman Brown Case (1973) EA, it was held that an applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success that it will suffer loss that cannot be compensated by damages and that if the Court is in doubt, it will determine the matter on a balance of convenience. 15.In the present case, the plaintiff’s contention is that it is the owner of the subject equipment. It relies on a Hire Purchase Agreement between the 1st defendant and Prime Bank Ltd. The same is dated 10/8/2018. From that document, the purpose of the facility was for Kshs. 48,209,674/90 being consolidation of outstanding balances of the 1st defendant’s Hire Purchase loans I, II and III. In that document, the plaintiff was only named as a guarantor to the facility. 16.The first thing to point out here is that, the terms of loans I, II and III are not disclosed in that document. The Court does not know what they were in respect of. Secondly, nowhere in that document are the subject equipment expressly mentioned. The closest the document came to mentioning machines is in Clause 7 of the Security to be offered. In item No. 10, it stated as part of the security:“10.The Hire Purchase Agreements security machines financed under letters of Offer Ref. PBL/HO-HP/096 dated 30th October 2013, PBL/HO-ADV/13/342(a) dated 11th November, 2013 and PBL/HO-HP/15/093 dated 14th September, 2015 continue to act as security for the machines being financed.” 17.The machines being financed were never disclosed. Even if the said equipment had been disclosed, there were no proprietary rights that were established to the plaintiff. The Hire Purchase Agreement only stated that in case the 1st defendant defaulted the Bank was to debit the Plaintiff’s account with the amount outstanding. It never stated that upon such debiting the subject matter of the Agreement would automatically belong to the guarantor, the plaintiff. 18.On the foregoing alone, it is clear that it cannot be said that there is a right of the Plaintiff that has been infringed by any of the parties in respect of the said equipment to warrant a rebuttal by them. (See Mrao Ltd vs American Bank Ltd & Another [2001] EKLR). 19.The other aspect of failure to establish a prima facie case by the plaintiff is the relationships between the parties herein. All the parties deny having anything to do with the subject equipment. Only the 2nd defendant admitted in his defence that he had been instructed by an entity known as West Kenya Diagnostic and Imaging Ltd to dispose off the same. That he disposed off the proceeds therefrom to the said entity. The said entity is not a party to these proceedings. In the circumstances, what purpose will the injunctive orders serve? None. 20.In view of the foregoing, the application has been overtaken by events. The Court cannot act in vain. No prima facie case has been established. No irreparable loss has been demonstrated as the loss is known, the value of the equipment. 21.Accordingly, the application is without merit and the same is dismissed with costs.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.A. MABEYA, FCI ArbJUDGE