Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC application dated 8th September 2020 (ELC No. 381 of 1997 refers to prior related suit)· [2021] KEELC 1356 (KLR)

Omar Masumbuko v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2021] KEELC 1356 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 October 2021
2,521 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa court stopped the National Bank of Kenya from auctioning a borrower's land, ruling a disputed debt figure and missing account records justified protection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Mohamed Omar Masumbuko, moved the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa by a notice of motion dated 8th September 2020 under Order 40 and Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 40 of the Constitution, seeking interim and interlocutory injunctions to restrain the National Bank of Kenya from selling, alienating or interfering with L.R. No. 9270/I/MN, and an order compelling the bank to produce books of account. The application was prompted by a notice of redemption and statutory notification of sale dated 30th June 2020 from Purple Royal Auctioneers, advertising the property for auction on 10th September 2020 to satisfy a claimed debt of Kshs 37,115,294.30. The applicant contended he had only guaranteed a Kshs 11 million facility, that the in duplum rule rendered the claim exaggerated, and that the bank had refused to render accounts, including for a prior auction of L.R. No. 8551/I/MN. The bank asserted the debt was undisputed, statutory notices had issued, and it was entitled to exercise its statutory power of sale. Applying the Giella v Cassman Brown principles, N.A. Matheka J found the disputed outstanding amount constituted a prima facie case, noted the property was valued at Kshs 258 million against a Kshs 37 million claim, and found the bank's annexed account statements incomplete. The court granted an interlocutory injunction pending hearing of the suit, ordered production of accounts within 30 days, and directed costs to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Prima facie case for temporary injunction

Holding

The applicant established a prima facie case because there is an apparent dispute between the parties over the outstanding amount owed

Reasoning

The court examined the notice of redemption and notification of sale from Purple Royal Auctioneers demanding Kshs 37,115,294.30 and the applicant's contention that he only guaranteed Kshs 11 million, with the in duplum rule invoked against an exaggerated claim. The existence of a genuine dispute as to the indebtedness satisfied the first Giella principle.

p. 2
02

Balance of convenience and right to accounts

Holding

The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant, who is entitled to full and current statements of account

Reasoning

The respondent's annexed account statements were found to be incomplete: one was for a third party account (Freight Contractors Services) for only a few months of 2007, and another for the applicant's account covering only 2006-2007. Given the incomplete records and the disparity between the property value (Kshs 258 million) and the claim (Kshs 37 million), an injunction and mandatory production of accounts within 30 days were warranted.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An interlocutory injunction is an equitable relief and may be declined where the applicant's conduct does not meet the approval of a court of equity
  • A dispute as to the outstanding amount on a charge establishes a prima facie case for injunctive relief

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of injunction restraining the respondents from selling, alienating, trespassing onto or in any manner interfering with or dealing with the property known as LAND REFERENCE NUMBER 9270/I/MN
  2. 2.The defendant/respondent to produce books of accounts pertaining to the applicant's account with regard to this matter within the next 30 days
  3. 3.Costs to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 rules 1, 2, 3 & 4; Order 50 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3A and 63(e)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40

Cases cited (6)

  • Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd
    1973 E.A 358
  • Kibutiri vs Kenya Shell
    Nairobi High Court Civil Case No.3398 of 1980 (1981) KLR
  • E.A Industries vs Trufoods
    (1972) EA 420
  • Robert Mugo wa Karanja vs Ecobank (Kenya) Limited & another
    (2019) eKLR
  • Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School vs City County Director of Education & 2 Others
    (2015) eKLR
  • Ochola Kamili Holdings Ltd vs Guardian Bank Ltd
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3 & 4 and Order 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3A & 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omar Masumbuko v National Bank of Kenya Ltd [2021] KEELC 1356 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC application dated 8th September 2020 (ELC No. 381 of 1997 refers to prior related suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1356/eng@2021-10-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.