[2022] KEHC 16254 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 16254 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the protection of their rights over the suit properties, particularly in light of the alleged failure to serve a valid statutory notice and the risk of irreparable loss. However, due to serious conflicts of fact and the need for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 16254 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tikoo & Company Limited; Plaintiff: Chetan Ranmal Haria; Plaintiff: Heman Ranmal Haria; Defendant: I & M Bank Limited; Defendant: Kentrack Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case E466 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Directions on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Status quo order granted; further directions issued for hearing of the application.
Judges
DO Chepkwony
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Statutory Notices, Equity of Redemption, Auction Sales
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Statutory Notices Equity of Redemption Auction Sales

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tikoo & Company Limited

Plaintiff

Chetan Ranmal Haria

Plaintiff

Heman Ranmal Haria

Plaintiff

I & M Bank Limited

Defendant

Kentrack Auctioneers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Directions on Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or interfering with the suit properties pending determination of the application.
  2. 2 Whether failure to serve a valid statutory notice affects the defendants' right to auction the properties.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to pay auctioneer's fees at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the protection of their rights over the suit properties, particularly in light of the alleged failure to serve a valid statutory notice and the risk of irreparable loss. However, due to serious conflicts of fact and the need for the defendants to be heard, the court determined that the appropriate course was to direct the maintenance of the status quo over the suit properties pending the determination of the notice of motion application. The issue of auctioneer's fees was deferred for later determination in the appropriate forum. The court granted the defendants time to file their response and set timelines for...

Court Disposition

Status quo order granted; further directions issued for hearing of the application.

Orders

  • Status quo prevailing over the suit properties LR XXXX2 and LR XXXX7 to be maintained pending determination of the notice of motion application dated November 23, 2022.
  • The issue of whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay auctioneer's fees and the fee payable is to be determined at a later stage in the correct forum.