TRV Towers Management Limited & 2 others v NCBA Bank Kenya PLC (Commercial Case E334 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7482 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION** **HCCOMM NO. E334 OF 2025** **TRV TOWERS MANAGEMENT LIMITED............1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT TRV CENTRE MANAGEMENT LIMITED...........2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PARK WEST TRV MANAGEMENT PLC.............3RD PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **NCBA BANK KENYA PLC................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. Before me is the Notice of Motion dated 15th May 2025 in which the Plaintiffs/Applicants seek, inter alia, orders compelling the Defendant Bank to lift restrictions imposed on the Plaintiffs’ bank accounts, permit operation of the said accounts, render accounts for monies paid out during the period of restriction, refund any monies unlawfully debited from the accounts during the period of restriction, and costs of the application. 2. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 40 Rule 1, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is supported by the affidavit of Patrick Sagwa Kisia sworn on 15th May 2025 together with the annexures thereto. 3. The Plaintiffs’ case is that they are the registered owners and operators of the subject accounts held at NCBA Bank Kenya PLC, and that sometime in May 2025 the Defendant unlawfully froze or restricted the said accounts without notice, without a court order and without affording them an opportunity to be heard. They contend that the restrictions have crippled their operations as management companies responsible for the provision of essential services in various commercial buildings. 4. The Plaintiffs further aver that through their advocates they demanded that the restrictions be lifted, but the Defendant declined to do so. They contend that the Defendant’s actions amount to a breach of the banker-customer relationship and violation of their constitutional right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the Constitution. 5. In support of their case, the Plaintiffs relied on, among others, Diamond Trust Bank Limited v AMCEA Limited [2020] KEHC 5820 (KLR), Central Bank Limited v Trust Bank Limited & 4 Others [1996] eKLR and Cecilia Karuru Ngayu v Barclays Bank of Kenya & another [2016] eKLR. 6. The Defendant opposed the application through the Replying Affidavit sworn on 18th June 2025 by **Kenneth Muriithi Mawira**, a Senior Legal Counsel in the Defendant Bank. 7. The Defendant does not dispute that the Plaintiffs operate the subject accounts. It however avers that the said accounts had three signatories namely Tribhovan Lalji Chavda, Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda and Virji Meghji Patel, with a mandate permitting any one of them to independently transact on the accounts. 8. The Defendant stated that it received complaints and correspondence from some of the account signatories alleging unauthorized and suspicious transactions in the accounts and requesting preservation of the funds pending clarification of the disputes touching on operation of the accounts. Annexed to the Replying Affidavit is correspondence from the advocates acting for Tribhovan Lalji Chavda and Jayesh Tribhovan Chavda requesting information and intervention in relation to the accounts. 9. The Defendant’s position is that, in the interest of preserving the accounts and pending receipt of the requisite company resolutions clarifying the mandate, it placed temporary restrictions on the accounts. It contends that it acted prudently and within the scope of its duties as a banker and has no interest in the internal disputes among the directors or shareholders of the Plaintiff companies. **Analysis and Determination** 1. I have considered the application, the affidavits on record, the rival submissions by the Applicant’s counsel, and the authorities cited. The sole issue falling for determination is whether the Plaintiffs have established a basis for grant of the interlocutory orders sought. 2. The principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions are now settled. In **Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358**, the Court held that an applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, demonstrate that irreparable loss may result which cannot be adequately compensated by damages, and, where the Court is in doubt, the application is determined on a balance of convenience. 3. The material before the Court shows that there exists a dispute among the persons associated with the management and operation of the Plaintiff companies and the subject bank accounts. The Defendant has exhibited correspondence raising concerns over alleged unauthorized transactions and seeking preservation of the funds pending clarification of the mandate. 4. It is also not disputed that the accounts were operated under a mandate permitting any one signatory to transact independently. In the face of complaints from some of the signatories regarding alleged irregular transactions, the Defendant, as banker, could not simply ignore the concerns raised. 5. A bank owes a duty both to honour its customer’s mandate and to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the operation of accounts. Where serious disputes touching on account mandates and possible unauthorized transactions are brought to its attention, a bank is entitled to take reasonable protective measures pending clarification of the mandate. 6. I am therefore unable, at this interlocutory stage, to conclude that the restrictions placed on the accounts were arbitrary, unlawful or actuated by malice. The Bank’s actions appear to have been undertaken in response to competing claims and concerns raised by persons who were admittedly signatories to the accounts. 7. Further, the prayers sought by the Plaintiffs are substantially mandatory in nature. The Plaintiffs seek orders compelling the Defendant to lift restrictions and permit immediate operation of the accounts. The law is settled that mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage are granted sparingly and only in clear and exceptional cases. 8. In Kenya Breweries Ltd & another v Washington Okeyo [2002] 1 EA 109, the Court held that a mandatory injunction can only issue on an interlocutory application in special circumstances and where the case is clear and straightforward. 9. In the present case, the dispute surrounding the management of the Plaintiff companies, the operation of the accounts, and the competing claims by the various signatories raises contested issues which cannot properly be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. 10. I am also not persuaded that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable loss incapable of compensation by an award of damages. Any loss arising from delayed access to the funds, if ultimately proved to have been occasioned unlawfully, is quantifiable. 11. On the balance of convenience, I find that it tilts in favour of preserving the status quo pending the determination of the dispute and clarification of the account mandates. 12. Consequently, I find the Notice of Motion dated 15th May 2025 not merited, and is therefore dismissed with costs to the Defendant. 13. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026** **** **HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO *Judge of the High Court*** **In the Presence of:** *Moses C/A* *Msungu h/b for Tito………………for the Applicant* *Gecaga h/b for Mutisya……………for the Respondent*