Central Bank of Kenya & Another v Uhuru Highway Development Ltd & 4 Others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed the Central Bank's appeal, keeping injunctions protecting the Grand Regency Hotel property and pushing the parties toward a speedy trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court erred in granting interlocutory injunctions restraining the Central Bank of Kenya from selling or interfering with the suit property
- 2.Whether the order removing the third appellant as receiver was valid despite absence of stated reasons
- 3.Whether the complaints about the charge's validity (duress, Banking Act, ultra vires) were res judicata or fit for interlocutory determination
Key legal issues
#Approach to interlocutory injunctions
The correct approach is a flexible, discretionary one: look at the whole case, the strength of claim and defence, and preserve the status quo where appropriate
Adopting Lord Denning MR in Hubbard v Vosper, the court held the discretion must not be clogged by a technical 50% prospects rule. Where evidence is incomplete, conflicting and untested, the court should not opine on ultimate prospects but consider balance of convenience and preserve the status quo pending trial.
Removal of a receiver without reasons
The superior court's unlimited jurisdiction entitled it to remove the receiver; failure to state reasons was not fatal
The third appellant was entitled to reasons, but the court held that failure to give reasons is not necessarily fatal, that reasons may exist though unstated, and that an experienced judge with the affidavits before him must be presumed to have considered them; he was entitled to disbelieve the deponed evidence.
Abuse of interlocutory process
Parties returning repeatedly to court on interlocutory applications instead of obeying orders and proceeding to trial is unacceptable; the court imposed leave requirements and directed expeditious trial
Noting with anxiety that despite prior orders no trial proceeded, the court stayed all pending applications, required the Chief Justice's special written leave for any new filing, and directed parties before the Chief Justice for fixation of a day-to-day trial.
Legal principles established
#- Failure by a judge to give reasons for an interlocutory decision is not necessarily fatal; absence of stated reasons does not mean there were none
- At interlocutory stage the court should not resolve conflicts of affidavit evidence or decide difficult questions of law; unless the plaintiff shows no real prospect of success, the court moves to balance of convenience
- Courts must only make orders obedience to which they can compel, and parties must obey court orders
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal and the consolidated appeal (Civil Appeal No 108 of 1999) each dismissed with costs
- 2.All pending applications in the superior court and in this Court stayed, not to be heard except with special written leave of the Chief Justice
- 3.No new suit, application or appeal to be filed in either court except with special written leave of the Chief Justice
- 4.All parties to Civil Suit No 589 of 1999 to appear before the Chief Justice within fourteen days for fixing of hearing dates and designation of a trial judge (not excluding Oguk J)
- 5.The trial to proceed on a day-to-day basis before the designated judge until finalised
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCC Suit No 589 of 1999
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over interlocutory decisions of the High Court
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal No 108 of 1999
Relief refused
#Appeal against interlocutory injunctions and removal of receiver
No ground to interfere with the judge's discretion; serious questions to be tried on incomplete, untested evidence; status quo best preserved
Costs
The appeal and the consolidated appeal each dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the right course for a judge is to look at the whole case.
It is no part of the court’s function at this stage of the litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit as to facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend
It is true that Courts should give reasons but, in our judgments, failure to do so is not necessary fatal.
1. The appeal and the one consolidated with it (being Civil Appeal No 108 of 1999) each be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
5. The trial of the action before the judge designated by the Hon the Chief Justice shall proceed on a day to day basis until the suit is finalised.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram spelling error in the judgment header
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Muthoka Makau & 25 others v Ahmed Siraj Noor; Aisha Faraj Mohamed & OCS Bamburi Police Station (Intended Interested Parties)[2023] KEELC 21245 (KLR)30 Oct 2023
- Ndolo v Musyoka & 2 others[2023] KEELC 17065 (KLR)26 Apr 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Central Bank of Kenya & Another v Uhuru Highway Development Ltd & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 91 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/429/eng@2000-08-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.