Rova Capital Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Civil Case E061 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 400 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Bungoma court ordered KCB to freeze Kshs 1.15 million in a customer's account because the bank's right to take it was genuinely disputed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case
Yes - the plaintiff's Certificate of Incorporation, the Collaboration Agreement and the payment voucher from the County Government of Bungoma showed a prima facie interest in the funds in the account, determinable only at full trial
The court weighed the plaintiff's documentary annextures against the defendant's affidavit evidence and found a prima facie case on the plaintiff's and Amos Natembeya Kisuya's interest in the Kshs. 1,150,279.30/= held in the KCB account. The court declined to make conclusive findings on separateness of legal entities or privity of the Collaboration Agreement, holding these could only be determined at full trial.
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction
Yes - preservation of the subject matter was necessary since the plaintiff might face a suit from Amos Natembeya Kisuya for recovery of money due to him
Relying on Joseph Siro Mosioma vs. Housing Finance Company of Kenya, the court held that damages is not an automatic remedy and a party cannot be condemned to take damages in lieu of a crystallised right protectable by injunction, even where the defendant is a financial institution able to refund the money.
Where the balance of convenience lies
It tilts in favour of the plaintiff, given the findings on prima facie case and irreparable injury
Applying Paul Gitonga Wanjau vs. Gathuthis Tea Factor Company Ltd, the court held that where the applicant has established a prima facie case and irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction; the defendant's financial strength is not a factor to refuse an injunction.
Treatment of the defendant's conflicting Replying Affidavits and submissions
Only the first set (filed 31st March 2025 per the 4th March 2025 directions) was considered; the second set filed hours before the ruling was not properly on record
The defendant filed two conflicting Replying Affidavits sworn by Walter Klerry and two sets of written submissions, the second filed hours before delivery of the ruling without any application to expunge. The court confined itself to the first set filed in compliance with the directions issued on 4th March 2025 and disregarded the second set as not properly on record.
Legal principles established
#- At interlocutory stage the court makes no conclusive findings of fact or law on contradictory affidavit evidence
- The three sequential Giella/Nguruman requirements for an interlocutory injunction
- Financial strength of a party is not a basis to refuse an injunction; damages is not an automatic remedy
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant/Respondent is restrained from converting, deducting and/or transferring the sum of Kshs. 1,150,279.30/= held in the Plaintiff/Applicant's Kenya Commercial Bank account number 132xxxxx84 at the Defendant/Respondent's institution pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Costs of this Application be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rova Capital Ltd v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd (Civil Case E061 of 2025) [2025] KEMC 400 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Case No E061 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2025/400/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.