Economy Network Limited & 2 others v Equity Bank & 2 others (Civil Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1051 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal blocked the transfer of auctioned land pending appeal, finding the sale's legality debatable and damages an inadequate remedy.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, if the orders sought are not granted, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was arguable because the applicants raised whether the correct public auction procedures, including statutory notices and section 99(3) of the Land Act, were followed.
The Court reviewed the draft memorandum of appeal, which faulted the learned judge on service of statutory notices, undervaluation of the suit property and fraudulent conduct of the auction. Applying the settled test that an arguable appeal need not succeed but need only be deserving of consideration, the Court found the applicants satisfied the first limb of the rule 5(2)(b) threshold.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory
The appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction were refused because the suit property would be transferred to the 3rd respondent and possibly onward to third parties, with her financial capability to compensate undisclosed.
The Court weighed the conflicting claims of the parties. Transfer of the suit property to the 3rd respondent, who might resell to third parties, would make recovery impossible if the appeal succeeded. Since the 3rd respondent did not disclose her financial capacity to compensate the applicants in damages, damages would not be an adequate remedy, satisfying the second limb.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both twin principles: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent relief.
- A single bona fide arguable ground suffices; the applicant need not show the ground will succeed.
- An appeal will be rendered nugatory where what is sought to be stayed is irreversible or not compensable by damages.
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with land parcel Kisumu Koru/1279 pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's appeal
- 2.Costs to abide the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
The upshot is that the application dated 28th January 2025 is with merit and is allowed. Costs shall abide the appeal.
an applicant need not to show a multiplicity of arguable points as one arguable point would sufice. Neither is the applicant required to show that the arguable point would succeed
An arguable appeal is not one that must necessarily succeed, it is simply one that is deserving of the court’s consideration.
Whether or not an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether or not what is sought to be stayed if allowed to happen is reversible; or if it is not reversible whether damages will reasonably compensate the party aggrieved.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number of the application is not stated in the judgment; inferred from the parties and context only.
The names of the applicants and full descriptions of the 1st and 2nd respondents are not set out in the judgment, which begins mid-matter.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Economy Network Limited & 2 others v Equity Bank & 2 others (Civil Application E007 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1051 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. E021 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1051/eng@2025-06-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.