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

Mwangi v Equity Bank Kenya Ltd & 2 others (Civil Application E267 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1815 (KLR) (7 November 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KECA 1815 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
1815
Citation
[2025] KECA 1815 (KLR)
Decided
7 November 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for orders of temporary injunction pending the hearing of an intended appealCoramAO MUCHELULE, Ogutu Mboya
Holding

The application for temporary injunction is dismissed as not urgent.

Facts

The applicant, Simon P. Mwangi, bought a property in 1997 and constructed a building on it. The 3rd respondent, Rorete Estate Limited, had previously bought the property from Halai Developers Limited and obtained title. The 1st respondent, Equity Bank Kenya Ltd., sold the property to the 2nd respondent, Joseph G. Muturi T/A Muga Auctioneers & General Merchants, to recover a loan. The applicant sought a declaration that the property belonged to him and an injunction to prevent the respondents from selling or auctioning the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for temporary injunction is urgent
  2. Whether the applicant should be accorded preferential treatment for his application to be listed for urgent consideration

Reasoning

The applicant did not disclose why he should be accorded preferential treatment for his application to be listed for urgent consideration in the face of other applications that were filed earlier and were queuing, some of them for a very long time. The established principle is that applications are heard on first come first heard basis.

Outcome

The application for temporary injunction is dismissed.

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