[2021] KECA 486 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 486 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that the applicant had not established the nugatory aspect and had not met the threshold for the grant of an injunction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 486 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Obadiah Mutisya Kitonyi; Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank; Respondent: Joseph Musembi Mala t/a Singleline Contractors
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal (Application) E491 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
FI Koome, DK Musinga
Legal Topics
Injunctions Pending Appeal, Statutory Power of Sale, Loan Security, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm, Fraud Allegations
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Land and Property Injunctions Pending Appeal Statutory Power of Sale Loan Security Prima Facie Case Irreparable Harm +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obadiah Mutisya Kitonyi

Applicant

Kenya Commercial Bank

Respondent

Joseph Musembi Mala t/a Singleline Contractors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to warrant an injunction pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case and irreparable harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if the injunction was not granted. The court noted that the applicant had not established the nugatory aspect and had not met the threshold for the grant of an injunction pending appeal. The court further observed that it would not interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion absent evidence of misdirection or injustice. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 3rd December, 2020 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.