Seif Mohammed t/a (Plaintiff/Applicant) v Ramco Group (Defendant/Respondent) - Application for temporary restraining injunction
The bottom line
#Disputing the amount of interest owed under a contract is generally not enough to stop a creditor from legally repossessing your assets.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
No - the indebtedness was not denied, bouncing cheques were unexplained, and the alleged arbitrary interest/duplum claim could not be determined at the interlocutory stage
The Court applied the Giella tripartite test. The Applicant did not deny indebtedness or the dishonoured cheques, and offered no explanation. The parties had contractually agreed the interest rates in the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 27.6.2014, and the Applicant did not show on a prima facie basis that the rates were exorbitant or extravagant. The duplum rule question was reserved for trial.
Whether a court should interfere with contractual repossession rights
No - the Respondent was entitled to exercise its contractual remedies under the Hire Purchase Agreement following the Applicant's breach
Relying on National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd, the Court held that parties are bound by their contract unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved. The Applicant was in breach and the Respondent was entitled to utilise its remedies under the Hire Purchase Agreement as it did.
Legal principles established
#- A dispute as to the amount of interest owing is not a basis upon which interlocutory injunctive relief may be granted
- A court cannot re-write a contract between parties; parties are bound by their contractual terms unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved
Court orders
#- 1.The temporary injunctive relief previously granted to the Applicants is vacated
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 7.6.2019 is dismissed
- 3.Costs to be borne by the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21), Order 40 Rules 1(a), 2, 4 and 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Article 50 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Seif Mohammed t/a (Plaintiff/Applicant) v Ramco Group (Defendant/Respondent) - Application for temporary restraining injunction", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 10.6.2019 (High Court civil suit, Nairobi). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.