Mwaniki v Njoroge (Civil Appeal E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7362 (KLR) (Civ) (26 May 2026) (Ruling)

Mwaniki v Njoroge (Civil Appeal E004 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 7362 (KLR) (Civ) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7362 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nyandarua Civil Civil Appeal E004 of 2026 KW Kiarie, J May 26, 2026 Between Richard Mwangi Mwaniki Appellant and Susan Gathoni Njoroge Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant herein moved the court through a Notice of Motion dated the 18th day of February 2026. It was brought under sections 1A, 1B, & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 3(1) of the Judicature Act, and Articles 159 & 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya. The applicant is seeking the following orders:a.That this application be certified as urgent and service of the same be dispensed with in the very first instance. [Spent]b.That pending the inter partes hearing and determination of this application, the honourable court be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent, her agents, and Elimonyaco Auctioneers from attaching, selling, or otherwise disposing of motor vehicle registration no. KDM 177X.c.That pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, the honourable court be pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction, restraining the respondent, her agents, and Elimonyaco Auctioneers from attaching, selling, or otherwise disposing of motor vehicle registration no. KDM 177X.d.The respondent does pay the costs of this application. 2.The application was premised on the following grounds:a.The appellant is the beneficial and equitable owner of the motor vehicle registration number KDM 177X.b.The attachment of the vehicle pursuant to the Engineer Magistrate's Court Civil Suit E101 of 2024 exposes the appellant to irreparable loss and risk to livelihood.c.That equity and justice require preservation of the status quo pending determination of the appeal.d.That the underlying objection pleadings were struck out on technical grounds, and the subject motor vehicle's very eminent sale would render the appeal nugatory.e.That it is in the best interest of justice that this application be allowed. 3.The respondent opposed the application on the following grounds:a.The application is bad in law, made in bad faith. inept, lacks merit, is an afterthought, and otherwise amounts to an abuse of the court process.b.The respondent filed a claim against Nippon Imports Limited and Clement Kariuki Michuki, the owners of motor vehicle registration number KDM 177 X. The suit was filed as Engineer CMCC No. E101 of 2024.c.The matter proceeded to a full hearing on the 28th of August. In 2025, the honourable trial court delivered its judgment in the respondent's favour.d.The judgment debtors were notified of the judgment and asked to pay, but failed to do so, and execution commenced.e.When execution commenced, the applicant herein moved the court through an objection application dated 1st of December 2025, seeking a stay of execution and release of the motor vehicle KDM 177 X, stating he was the owner of the said motor vehicle.f.MKS Investment Co. Limited, in its application dated 3rd of December 2025, objected to the attachment and sale of the subject motor vehicle registration number KDM 177 X, stating that it is the owner of the said motor vehicle.g.That, in the circumstances, I pray that the applicant's application be dismissed with costs to the applicant and that the respondent be allowed to proceed with execution. 4.The applicant was not a party in the trial court. He came into the matter through objection proceedings. In order to persuade this court to grant a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, he must satisfy the principles enunciated in Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Limited [1973] EA 358. This is what the court stated:First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the Court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience. 5.I have reviewed the application and submissions from both sides. I must proceed carefully to avoid addressing issues that might relate to the appeal. In my opinion, the applicant has not shown that he will suffer irreparable loss that cannot be redressed by monetary compensation. 6.The application is therefore dismissed with costs. DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NYANDARUA, THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026KIARIE WAWERU KIARIEJUDGE