[2006] KEHC 1604 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on uncontroverted evidence that no valid statutory notice was served, certain sums paid into the loan account were not credited, and there was an agreement to suspend the application of interest rates. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1604 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wama Fees Limited; Plaintiff: Peter Maina Njoroge; Plaintiff: Livinstone Mwangi Thumbi; Defendant: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 185 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs; costs of the application awarded to the plaintiffs.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Statutory Power of Sale, Service of Statutory Notice, Loan Account Disputes, Interest Rate Suspension, Irreparable Loss
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wama Fees Limited
Plaintiff
Peter Maina Njoroge
Plaintiff
Livinstone Mwangi Thumbi
Plaintiff
Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling the charged properties pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether a valid statutory notice was served on the plaintiffs as required by law.
- 3 Whether the defendant failed to account for sums paid into the loan account and whether the amount due is uncertain.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success based on uncontroverted evidence that no valid statutory notice was served, certain sums paid into the loan account were not credited, and there was an agreement to suspend the application of interest rates. The defendant did not oppose the application, and the plaintiffs demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable loss if the properties were sold. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, or dealing with the suit properties until the determination of the suit.
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs; costs of the application awarded to the plaintiffs.
Orders
- The plaintiffs are granted a temporary injunction until the determination of the suit restraining the defendant from selling, by public auction or otherwise, alienating or dealing with the suit premises known as TITLE NO. NGUIRUBI/NDIUNI/1293, KIAMBU DISTRICT; TITLE NO. LOC 8/NGARU/NGUYOINE/81, MURANGA DISTRICT; and...
- The plaintiffs are awarded costs of the chamber summons dated 10th April 2006.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 185 of 2006
WAMA FEES LIMITED…………………................................................……...………….1ST PLAINTIFF
PETER MAINA NJOROGE…………………..............................................……….…….2ND PLAINTIFF
LIVINSTONE MWANGI THUMBI……………................................................………….3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LIMITED…...............................................…..…….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The parties advocates on 23rd May 2006, by consent, fixed for hearing the chamber summons dated 10th April 2006. They took 20th June 2006 for hearing of that chamber summons. However on that date of hearing the defendant’s advocate failed to attend court and accordingly the plaintiff’s said chamber summons was unopposed.
The plaintiff’s application seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling, in the exercise of statutory power sale, three properties of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s application is brought under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The same is grounded on the grounds; that no valid statutory notice has been served; that the notification of sale served on the plaintiffs are void and illegal; that the respondent has failed to account for certain sums paid into the loan account; that the plaintiffs are not sure of the amount due to the respondent; and that if the charged properties are sold the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss.
The application was supported by the 1st plaintiff’s affidavit, which essentially highlighted the grounds hereof. Additionally that affidavit deponed that when parties entered into negociation, it was agreed that the application of interest rate to the loan account would be suspended. As consequence of the matters deponed to plaintiff stated that the proposed sale of the charged property would be illegal, and that unless the respondent is restrained from selling the plaintiff’s properties, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss.
That court finds that on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence presented by the plaintiff, particular on the issue of non service of the statutory notice, the issue of non crediting of a certain amounts into the loan account and the issue of agreed suspension of interest rates, the plaintiff has shown a prima facie case with a probability of success.
Accordingly the court grants the plaintiff the following orders: -
(1)The plaintiffs are hereby granted temporary injunction until the determination of this suit against the defendant’s sale, by public auction or otherwise, alienation or dealing with the suit premises known as:
a.TITLE NO. NGUIRUBI/NDIUNI/1293, KIAMBU DISTRICT;
b.TITEL NO. LOC 8/NGARU/NGUYOINE/81, MURANGA DISTRICT;
c.TITLE NO. LOC 8/NGARU/NGUYOINE/242 MURANGA DISTRICT
(2) The plaintiff is granted costs of the chamber summons dated 10th April 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered this 20th July 2006
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE