Issack v Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court blocked a bank from re-auctioning land after it accepted a late Ksh 30 million payment, protecting the buyer until the case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with probability of success
The applicant established a prima facie case having paid the deposit of Ksh 11,650,000 plus Ksh 4,900,000 and Ksh 30,000,000, whose payment outside the 90-day period estopped the respondents from re-selling without notice.
Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd, the court found an apparent right of the applicant as successful purchaser infringed by the attempted re-sale despite part payment. The bank accepted Ksh 30,000,000 after the 90-day completion period lapsed, creating a legitimate expectation and estopping it from cancelling or re-auctioning without notice.
Irreparable injury
The applicant, having paid substantial sums and being in possession, is likely to suffer irreparable loss if evicted following the intended auction.
Following Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai, the court held that injury not adequately compensable in damages was demonstrated: the applicant had paid the deposit and substantial further amounts and occupied the property as purchaser, so eviction through a fresh auction would cause loss not remediable by damages.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.
The court reasoned that the applicant would suffer greater inconvenience if the injunction were refused and the suit succeeded, whereas the respondents would suffer less inconvenience if the injunction were granted but the suit failed. On this test, the interlocutory injunction was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- By accepting part payment of the purchase price outside the stipulated 90-day period, a chargee is estopped from selling the property without notice and the dispute becomes a contractual dispute.
Court orders
#- 1.Pending the hearing and determination of the suit, an order of injunction restraining the defendant respondents and their agents from auctioning, alienating, advertising for sale, offering for sale, selling, taking possession of, leasing, transferring, charging or otherwise dealing with land parcel No. Nakuru/Municipality Block5/116
- 2.Costs of the application in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory injunction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Issack v Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E031 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6722/eng@2025-10-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.