John Irungu Njeri & 2 others v Jamii Bora Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELC 1152 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop the threatened sale of two Kajiado plots because the homeowners failed to show documentary proof of their claims.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant a temporary injunction
No prima facie case was established against either Defendant
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case, the court found the Plaintiffs' documentary evidence wanting: apart from one clearance letter dated 27 July 2012, no charge documents, demand letters from the 1st Defendant, or account statements proving loan repayment were annexed. Letters from the 2nd Defendant demanding settlement within fourteen days showed, if anything, outstanding loans. The 2nd Defendant's alleged intention to repossess and sell the houses was not conclusively proved.
Legal principles established
#- Where no prima facie case is established under the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, the court need not consider the remaining limbs of the injunction test
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion application dated 29th May, 2019 is disallowed
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 1A, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1(a)(b) & 4 and Order 51 Rules 1, 3, 4, 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Irungu Njeri & 2 others v Jamii Bora Bank Limited & another [2021] KEELC 1152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1152/eng@2021-11-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.