Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicant, Nancy Kavinya Kioko, sought an injunction to prevent the respondent (Agricultural Finance Corporation) from auctioning her property (L.R No 17864/10) on February 4, 2021. The applicant claimed the respondent wrongfully advertised the property for sale despite a prior agreement to replace it with a higher-valued property (L.R No 27970/) as security. The respondent argued the applicant defaulted on a Kshs 10,000,000 loan secured by the original property and that the current application was an abuse of process (res judicata). The court found the applicant failed to comply with the terms of a 2019 consent order and did not establish a prima facie case for injunction.
Issues
- The applicant sought urgent relief to prevent irreparable harm and multiplicity of suits, but the court dismissed the application as lacking merit, finding no justification for intervention under the circumstances.
- The primary issue is whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the equitable relief of an injunction, as outlined in Giella v Casman Brown and Company Limited, considering the applicant's default on loan repayments and the respondent's statutory right to sell the secured property.
- The court examined if the applicant met the 'clean hands' requirement for equitable relief, concluding she failed to honor the consent order and statutory obligations, thus disqualifying her from injunctive relief.
- The respondent argues the application is res judicata and an abuse of process, referencing a 2019 consent order where the applicant agreed to repayment terms that were subsequently breached, necessitating the respondent's exercise of statutory powers of sale.
- The applicant claimed to have offered a higher-valued property as alternative security, but the court determined this issue cannot be resolved at the interlocutory stage and requires further evidence.
Holdings
- The application for injunctive orders was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for an injunction as required by law.
Remedies
- The court awarded costs to the respondent in the dismissal of the applicant's application.
- The court dismissed the applicant's application for injunctive orders and awarded costs to the respondent.
Legal Principles
- The 'clean hands' equitable principle was invoked, requiring the applicant to demonstrate compliance with prior agreements. The court found she failed to meet this standard by breaching the 2019 consent order.
- The court found the application was res judicata and an abuse of process, as prior consent orders (CMCC No 3692 of 2019) had already addressed the same dispute and the applicant breached those terms.
- The court applied the established principles for granting interlocutory injunctions, requiring the applicant to show a prima facie case with a probability of success, potential irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, leading to dismissal.
Precedent Name
- Alpha Logistics Kenya Limited & 2 Others v Edcom Limited & Another
- Giella v Casman Brown and Company Limited
- Mrao Limited v First American Bank of Kenya and 2 Others
Judge Name
WA OKWANY
Passage Text
- For the above reasons, I find that the instant application lacks merit and I therefore dismiss it with costs to the respondent.
- Therefore though at an interlocutory stage the court is not required and indeed forbidden to purport to decide with finality the various relevant 'facts' urged by the parties, the remedy being an equitable one, the Court will decline to exercise its discretion if the supplicant to relief is shown to be guilty of conduct which does not meet the approval of the court of equity.
- The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are now, I think, well settled in East Africa. First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.