Equip Agencies Limited v I & M Investment Bank & 2 others [2019] KECA 82 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop the resale of a Gilgil property because an arguable appeal alone, without proof of irreparable harm, cannot win an injunction pending appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal was arguable
Yes - the memorandum of appeal raised some arguable points because the applicant was challenging a sale that had already taken place, whereas previous suits had sought to prevent a sale that had not yet occurred.
The Court distinguished the challenge to the completed auction from the earlier litigation seeking to stop the sale before it happened. It declined to say more, noting that the bench that ultimately hears the appeal determines merit. Arguability was thus established on a single bona fide issue.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent an injunction
No - the value of the suit property was known in precise monetary terms and the 1st respondent had undertaken to compensate the applicant, so damages would be an adequate remedy.
The applicant speculated that the 3rd respondent might transfer the property to third parties but produced no evidence, and the 3rd respondent was servicing a loan taken to buy the property. The known value of the property and the bank's undertaking meant a successful appeal could be adequately compensated in damages; the applicant failed the second and conjunctive limb.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both the arguability and the nugatory limbs; satisfying only one is insufficient.
- An arguable appeal need not be one that must succeed; it is one that is not frivolous and raises even one bona fide arguable issue deserving full consideration.
- The Court's primary concern on rule 5(2)(b) applications is that a successful appeal not be rendered a pyrrhic victory by irreversible events or inadequacy of damages.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 29th August 2019 seeking an injunction pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCC No. 87 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to grant injunctions pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Equip Agencies Limited & another v Daniel Njuguna Gitau, Lucas Kiiru Ngigi, Kelvin Mureithi & Mary Njoroge (Sued as Office Bearers of Gilgil Total Investors Self Help Group) & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 89 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2024] KEELC 5306 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 5306 (KLR)18 Jul 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equip Agencies Limited v I & M Investment Bank & 2 others [2019] KECA 82 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 412 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/82/eng@2019-12-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.