[2016] KEHC 2817 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2817 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant provided evidence of loan repayment and alleged non-service of statutory notices by the respondent. The respondent, despite being aware of the hearing date, failed to appear or contest...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 2817 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sebastiano Kinoti Marete; Respondent: Agricultural Finance Corporation
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 148 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Statutory Notice Requirements, Loan Repayment Disputes, Public Auction of Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Banking and Finance Injunctive Relief Statutory Notice Requirements Loan Repayment Disputes Public Auction of Land

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sebastiano Kinoti Marete

Applicant

Agricultural Finance Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from auctioning or selling the suit land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with statutory notice requirements before seeking to auction the applicant's land.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that he does not owe any loan balance to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The applicant provided evidence of loan repayment and alleged non-service of statutory notices by the respondent. The respondent, despite being aware of the hearing date, failed to appear or contest the application. The court was satisfied that the applicant risked losing his property through auction without due process and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending the determination of the suit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction restraining the respondent from auctioning or selling the applicant's land until the suit is heard and...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • The respondent, its agents, assignees or anyone acting on its behalf is restrained from auctioning or selling land parcel NO. ABOTHUGUCHI/LOWER KAONGO/588 or in any way interfering with the applicant's proprietary rights until the hearing and determination of the suit or further orders of the court.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.