[2006] KEHC 2876 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2876 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had not made any payments towards the loan since 2001, and the cheque for the last installment was dishonoured. The application for injunction was brought over two years after the judgment, with no leave to appeal out of time having been sought or granted. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 2876 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: William M. Khamasi; Plaintiff: Leonida J. Khamaai; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1644 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Mortgage Enforcement, Appeals, Interest on Loans
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Injunctions Mortgage Enforcement Appeals Interest on Loans

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William M. Khamasi

Plaintiff

Leonida J. Khamaai

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an injunction pending appeal against the sale of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the interest charged by the defendant was unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the application and intended appeal bars the applicants from relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not made any payments towards the loan since 2001, and the cheque for the last installment was dishonoured. The application for injunction was brought over two years after the judgment, with no leave to appeal out of time having been sought or granted. The court held that the intended appeal was an exercise in futility, and the delay in bringing the application indicated a lack of seriousness on the part of the applicants. Consequently, the application for injunction pending appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for injunction pending appeal is dismissed with costs.