SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Said Ahmed v Manasseh Denga & another [2019] KECA 1014 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 1014 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
1014
Citation
[2019] KECA 1014 (KLR)
Decided
8 February 2019
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeInterlocutory AppealPostureAppeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Court, Nairobi (Kamau, J) dated 30th January, 2015CoramP. N. WAKI, S. GATEMBU KAIRU, F. SICHALE
Holding

The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the status quo as at 16th June, 2014, pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.

Facts

Denga, the registered proprietor of a house in Lavington, Nairobi, bought it for Ksh.47 million in 2011. He took a loan of Ksh.40,745,317 from Eco Bank Kenya Limited, which he was to repay over 25 years. Within the first three years, Denga had repaid about Ksh.24.5 million. The bank auctioned the house to Denga's opponent, Said Ahmed, for Ksh.46 million. Denga filed a suit to enjoin Ahmed from taking possession of the house, alleging fraud, illegality, and breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court's ruling granting injunctive relief pending the hearing and determination of the main suit was correct.
  2. Whether the transfer of the disputed property to Ahmed was valid and whether Denga should be entitled to damages and a permanent injunction.

Reasoning

The court found that Denga had a strong case and that the transfer of the property to Ahmed was valid. The court ordered that the status quo be maintained until the main suit is heard and determined.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Ordering the status quo to be maintained until the main suit is heard and determined.

Remedies

  • Damages
  • Permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from selling, offering for sale, transferring and/or in any other manner disposing the suit premises.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case