Sunrise Security Services Limited & 2 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2018] KEELC 1049 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Once a property is sold at auction, the right to redeem it ends at the fall of the hammer, and disputes about loan balances do not justify stopping the sale.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competency of the application for want of written authority under Order 1 Rule 13
The objection was not upheld; the authority had since been filed and the court would not strike out the suit on this technicality
The respondents relied on Ndungu Mugoya, which held failure to file written authority rendered a suit incompetent. The court held that decision reflected a pre-2010 era of procedural technicalities, displaced by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, and that the authority had since been filed.
Whether the injunction sought offends Order 2 Rule 6(1) as not prayed for in the plaint
The application did not offend Order 2 Rule 6 because the amended plaint incorporated the relief sought, and the amendment was made before pleadings closed without leave
Relying on Mary Ngaru, the respondents argued the application sought relief absent from the plaint. The court noted an amended plaint had incorporated the relief before pleadings closed, in compliance with Order 2 Rule 6(2), so no leave was needed and the objection failed.
Whether an injunction can issue to restrain completion of a sale that has already taken place
No; the right of redemption was extinguished at the fall of the hammer and the remedy lies in damages
The suit property was auctioned on 15th February 2018. Following Samuel Njoroge Mburu, the court held the chargor's right of redemption ends at the fall of the hammer; the purchasers are protected, and the applicants' remedy, if the auction was unlawful, is damages.
Whether disputed loan balance and interest justify an injunction
No; such disputes cannot found injunctive relief
The applicants alleged the disclosed loan balance was untrue and records withheld. The court, citing Palms Company and Fina Bank v Ronak, held that where charge documents reserve a right to vary interest, the contract cannot be impeached merely because the exact rate was unspecified; such disputes do not support an injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A chargor loses the right of redemption at the fall of the hammer at a public auction
- A dispute as to the amount owed or interest charged cannot be a ground for grant of an injunction
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires courts to disregard undue regard to procedural technicalities
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' application is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court; Civil Procedure Rules 2010
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.
- Alchanave Limited v Kimani (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5925 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5925 (KLR)30 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sunrise Security Services Limited & 2 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2018] KEELC 1049 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1049/eng@2018-10-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.