[2007] KEHC 2858 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant had raised substantial issues regarding the lawfulness of the interest rate increases and penalty charges imposed by the Respondent under the mortgage instrument. The court held that these issues required careful examination at the substantive hearing and could not be conclusively...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2858 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nancy Jeruto Bomett; Respondent: Housing Finance Company Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 370 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application allowed; temporary injunction granted pending appeal.
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Mortgage Interest Variation, Penalty Charges, Injunctive Relief, Enforcement of Security
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nancy Jeruto Bomett
Applicant
Housing Finance Company Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent lawfully increased the interest rate and imposed penalty charges under the mortgage instrument.
- 2 Whether the imposition of 'interest on interest' and other charges was in accordance with the law and the mortgage agreement.
- 3 Whether the Applicant has established a prima facie case warranting the grant of a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant had raised substantial issues regarding the lawfulness of the interest rate increases and penalty charges imposed by the Respondent under the mortgage instrument. The court held that these issues required careful examination at the substantive hearing and could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage. The Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success, particularly as the suit property was her residence and damages would not be an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience favored the Applicant, as the Respondent continued to hold security over the property and would not suffer prejudice if the injunction was...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; temporary injunction granted pending appeal.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the Respondent from selling the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Appeal 370 of 2006
NANCY JERUTO BOMETT ……………..……………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LTD …..…….…..RESPONDENT
RULING
In this application dated 9th June, 2006, and filed under O.41 R.4 (6) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellant/Applicant seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondent from selling the suit property, pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal.
By a charge dated 1st August, 1990 the Applicant charged the suit property to the Respondent for a loan of Shs.378,000 repayable with interest at 16½% per annum in two hundred and sixteen monthly instalments of Shs.5,669/=.
According to the Applicant, the Respondent unilaterally and unlawfully increased the instalment payable to Shs.6168/= effective September, 1991. Thereafter, the Respondent unlawfully and unilaterally increased the interest rate from 16½% to 21% per annum effective 1st January, 1993, and charged 18% “penalty interest”, thereby bringing the total sum payable under the mortgage instrument to Shs.1,090,733/= as of 31st January, 2006.
Although the Applicant acknowledges that the mortgage instrument allows the Respondent to vary the interest rate, she argues that it cannot charge penalty interest, and other “penalty charges”. The Applicant claims that in imposing various penalty and other charges the Respondent is in breach of various provisions of the Central Bank of Kenya Act and the Banking Act. According to the Applicant’s advisors, the Interest Rates Advisory Centre Limited, the balance outstanding as of 30th June, 2005 should not exceed Shs.489,996. 56 as per annexture NJB 10 in the Supporting Affidavit.
The Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that all the charges imposed by it are in accordance with the mortgage instrument and the law; that the mortgage instrument allowed the Respondent levy “interest on interest” and “other” charges; and that the Report of the Interest Rates Advisory Centre Limited, relied upon by the Applicant, was only an “opinion” whose veracity “needed to be tested in a Court of law.”
The Respondent is correct in its submission that there are issues and allegations here whose veracity needs to be tested in the Court. That can only be done at the substantive hearing, and not at this stage. For now, I am satisfied that the Applicant has raised sufficient issues that need careful examination: whether the interest rate charged, together with “interest on interest”, and “other” charges were lawful, and in accordance with the mortgage instrument. The Respondent’s contention that the instrument permitted “interest on interest” charges, does not necessarily make it “legal”. I am satisfied, for now, that the Applicant has presented a prima facie case with a probability of success; that the suit property being her residential property, damages may not be an adequate compensation; and the balance of convenience tilts in her favour. The Respondent continues to hold security over the suit property, and will not suffer any prejudice in the event of its success at Appeal. Accordingly, I will allow this application as prayed, except that costs shall be in the cause.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 28th day of March, 2007
…………………………….
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE