Chrispine Ochieng Owalo v Mwananchi Credit Limited & 1 other

4. The respondent has reacted to the application, vide an affidavit, sworn on 23rd May 2025, by Cedella Akech. The affidavit discusses how the loan in question was granted, and how the appellant defaulted, and how processes for realisation of the security were initiated, among others. A copy of the ruling, in which the impugned orders were made, the loan and charge documents, the statutory notices and the advertisements are attached. 5. Directions were given, on 27th May 2025, for canvassing of the application by way of written submissions. Both sides have filed written submissions, which I have read and noted the arguments made. 6. I find it curious that the appellant comes to the High Court to challenge orders made by the trial court, and only attaches a copy of the order extracted, which merely shows that an application was dismissed, and the suit was struck out. He then goes on to argue that the trial court was wrong in making those orders, and that he has an arguable appeal on the merits. 7. A party who moves the High Court, to challenge a process that was undertaken at the trial court, should avail all the material that the trial court was working with, when it made the impugned order. This is critical at this interlocutory stage, for the appellate court does not have the benefit of the original triable court records, and, therefore, it has no access to the pleadings, the application, the responses, and the ruling where those orders were made. At this stage, no record of appeal would be in place, and, therefore, it behoves the applicant, in his affidavit in support of his application, to avail all that materials to help the court understand what the suit at the trial court was about, what issues arose in the application, and how the trial court dealt with them. Whether the grounds of appeal in the memorandum of appeal raises triable issues can only be evaluated from the material that was before the trial court. 8. In this case, only the extracted order was annexed, which is a bare document, mere evidence that the order was in fact made, but without a background as to how and why it was made. That is not adequate. The orders sought cannot be made on the basis that an appeal has been filed, and the auctioneer has advertised the property for sale. There should be more. What is the background? How did we get to where we are? 9. I note that the respondents have done a better job, in terms of giving a background, and attaching the relevant documentation, including the impugned ruling itself. However, without a copy of the pleadings, I would not be able to get the context of the ruling. What was the suit about? The application, which gave rise to impugned orders, is also not exhibited. What was the appellant asking for? What material was displayed in the supporting affidavit? What was the response by the other parties? This would be crucial in giving background, from which I can evaluate whether to grant the orders sought or not. 10. I am not persuaded that adequate material is before me, to enable me to determine whether the prerequisites for grant of injunctive relief have been met, principally whether a prima facie case has been made out, which would have probability of success. 11. Consequently, the application, dated 13th May 2025, is hereby dismissed, with costs. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, AT BUSIA, ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025. WM MUSYOKA JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/11723/eng@2025-07-31 2

page 2 of 3

Mr. Arthur Etyang, Court Assistant. Advocates Ms. Owiti, instructed by Nancy Apondi & Company, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Isoe, instructed by Isoe Joel Law Advocates, Advocates for the respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/11723/eng@2025-07-31 3

page 3 of 3