Wanderi v Equity Bank (K) Ltd & another (Civil Appeal E068 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5780 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

Wanderi v Equity Bank (K) Ltd & another (Civil Appeal E068 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 5780 (KLR) (30 April 2026) (Judgment)

The trial court erred by dismissing the entire suit at the interlocutory stage without hearing the applicant on the merits, thereby violating the right to be heard under Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution. The applicant was entitled to have his case heard substantively. The court allowed the prayers for stay,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 5780 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Simon Njoroge Wanderi; 1st Respondent: Equity Bank (K) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Ngure Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E068 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Application for Stay, Injunction, and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application allowed in part
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Right to Be Heard, Mortgage and Charge Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Injunctions Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Right to Be Heard Mortgage and Charge Enforcement

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Njoroge Wanderi

Appellant

Equity Bank (K) Ltd

1st Respondent

Ngure Auctioneers

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Interlocutory Application for Stay, Injunction, and Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the substantive suit and marking it as closed without a hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant met the threshold for grant of injunction and stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court erred by dismissing the entire suit at the interlocutory stage without hearing the applicant on the merits, thereby violating the right to be heard under Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution. The applicant was entitled to have his case heard substantively. The court allowed the prayers for stay, injunction, and leave to appeal out of time as set out in prayers iii, iv, v, vi, vii, and viii of the application.

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • Prayers iii, iv, v, vi, vii, and viii of the application dated 19th March 2025 are allowed as prayed (granting stay of execution, injunction, setting aside of trial court orders, and leave to appeal out of time).
  • No orders as to costs.