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

Willesden Investments Limited v Kenya Hotel Properties Limited [2019] KECA 62 (KLR)

[2019] KECA 62 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
62
Citation
[2019] KECA 62 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for the release of Bank Guarantee No. DBK/200/030CoramR.N. NAMBUYE, M.K. KOOME, HANNAH OKWENGU
Holding

Application for the release of Bank Guarantee No. DBK/200/030 is dismissed and the release is stayed pending hearing and determination of Kenya Hotel's application for review in CA No. 149 of 2007 and the hearing and determination of CA No. 404 of 2018.

Facts

Willesden Investments Limited filed an application for the release of a Bank Guarantee No. DBK/200/030, which was opposed by Kenya Hotel Properties Limited. Willesden claimed to be the successful party in a previous judgment, while Kenya Hotel argued against the release due to pending court processes.

Issues

  1. Release of Bank Guarantee No. DBK/200/030
  2. Review of pending court processes

Reasoning

Both parties' concerns were not controverted by Willesden, and the outcome of the pending court processes will impact the release of the guarantee.

Outcome

Application dismissed, release of Bank Guarantee No. DBK/200/030 stayed

Orders

  • Application dated 7th March, 2018 is dismissed.
  • Order is granted to stay the release of the original security Bond/Bank guarantee No DBK2007/030 pending hearing and determination of application for review in CA No. 149 of 2007 and the hearing and determination of CA No. 404 of 2018.

Remedies

  • Each party to bear own costs.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Butt versus Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417
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