[2001] KECA 201 (KLR)

[2001] KECA 201 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant had been duly served with a valid statutory notice of sale, as conceded by her counsel. The Bank's statutory power of sale had arisen, and the property was sold at auction to the second respondent, who had paid the purchase price and executed the sale agreement. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] KECA 201 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Millicent Ngeso Ogila; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited; Respondent: Dr. Peter W. Masinde
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 98 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AB Shah
Legal Topics
Statutory Power of Sale, Mortgage Enforcement, Injunctions, Auction Sales
Source Language
en
Land and Property Banking and Finance Statutory Power of Sale Mortgage Enforcement Injunctions Auction Sales

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millicent Ngeso Ogila

Applicant

Kenya Commercial Bank Limited

Respondent

Dr. Peter W. Masinde

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was served with a valid statutory notice of sale as required under the law.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the transfer of the suit property to the purchaser after auction.
  3. 3 Whether there exists any arguable point to justify the grant of an injunction pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had been duly served with a valid statutory notice of sale, as conceded by her counsel. The Bank's statutory power of sale had arisen, and the property was sold at auction to the second respondent, who had paid the purchase price and executed the sale agreement. There was no arguable point or legal basis advanced by the applicant to justify the grant of an injunction restraining the transfer of the property. The application was therefore misconceived and dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to both respondents.