Kiiru v Absa Bank Kenya PLC & another (Environment and Land Case 45 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1037 (KLR)

The court restated the settled triple test: the applicant must establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and show the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. The court considered the applicant's marriage certificate, the alleged charge of the matrimonial property without spousal consent, and the respondent bank's security realization process. Unable to interrogate all documents at the interlocutory stage, the court found a lower risk of injustice in maintaining the status quo.

The court adopted the Court of Appeal's definition in Mrao Ltd: a case in which, on the material presented, a tribunal properly directing itself would conclude there exists a legal right apparently infringed by the opposite party, calling for an explanation or rebuttal. The Applicant relied on her marriage certificate and her claim that no spousal consent was obtained for the charge over the matrimonial home.

The Applicant, the legal wife of the registered owner, asserted the property was acquired during the marriage and forms part of the matrimonial property. She claimed the charge to the 1st Respondent for Kshs. 23,702,060.85 was executed clandestinely without her spousal consent. The 1st Respondent countered that the alleged marriage was immaterial because the 2nd Respondent swore affidavits of marital status confirming he was not married. The court did not resolve this factual dispute, preserving it for the main suit.