Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (Nyahururu ELC; suit number not printed)· [2026] KEELC 1236 (KLR)

Seven Three Limited v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1236 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 February 2026
LMLucy N. Mbugua
902 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff/applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu by notice of motion dated 19.11.2025 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling, dealing with or disposing of suit parcel Laikipia/Nyahururu/8211, an order of status quo, a declaration that the Notification of sale issued by Commercial Auctioneers Limited was illegal, and an order for refund of alleged over-payments. The applicant pleaded that it obtained a loan of about Ksh 49.7 million in 2011 to construct hotels; a prior dispute was settled in Nyahururu ELC No. 443 of 2017 by a consent fixing the full and final amount at Ksh 53 million plus Ksh 1,250,000 for fees and costs, payable by 30 June 2019. The applicant contended it had paid Ksh 90,704,355 against a fresh demand of Ksh 76,209,212, rendering the Notice to Sell illegal. The defendant, via grounds of opposition, argued the suit was res judicata and an abuse of process given the consent, and that the applicant had not complied, justifying recovery by public auction. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as reinforced in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court found the unrebutted figures disclosed a prima facie case warranting injunctive relief, but held there was insufficient material to declare the sale illegal at the interlocutory stage. Lucy N. Mbugua, J, partially allowed the application: a temporary injunction and a status quo order over the suit property issued pending the hearing of the main suit, and the costs of the application were ordered to abide its outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the sale of the suit property

Holding

Yes - the applicant made out a prima facie case by showing figures of amounts paid against the demand, unrebutted by the respondent

Reasoning

The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions as reinforced in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen. The applicant cited actual figures - payments of Ksh 90,704,355 against a demand of Ksh 76,209,212 - which the respondent did not rebut and remained silent on the pending loan amount. That failure made the intended sale improperly justified and warranted injunctive orders.

p. 2
02

Whether the Notice to Sell should be declared illegal at the interlocutory stage

Holding

No - there is insufficient material to determine illegality now

Reasoning

Although the applicant contended the demand of Ksh 76,209,212 was absurd and illegal given amounts already paid, the court held that determining the legality of the proposed sale requires fuller material and evidence, deferring the question to the substantive hearing of the suit. Only restraining and status quo orders were appropriate at this stage.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The settled principles for the grant of temporary injunctions are those in Giella v Cassman Brown: prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience
  • A chargee seeking to exercise the statutory power of sale must rebut or account for figures disputed by the chargor; an unrebutted claim of over-payment supports injunctive relief

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary order of injunction restraining the defendant/respondent and its servants and agents, particularly Westminster Commercial Auctioneers Limited, from selling, dealing, interfering or disposing of title number Laikipia/Nyahururu/8211-Laikipia County pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
  2. 2.Status quo as to the ownership of title number Laikipia/Nyahururu/8211-Laikipia County to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
  3. 3.The suit property shall not be sold until further orders are given by the Court
  4. 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited V Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Ors
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit land Laikipia/Nyahururu/8211

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Seven Three Limited v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1236 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Nyahururu ELC; suit number not printed). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1236/eng@2026-02-26

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