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

Thiora v United Nation Sacco Ltd & another (Tribunal Case 187/E244 of 2022) [2023] KECPT 981 (KLR) (Civ) (21 September 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KECPT 981 (KLR) Co-operative Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Co-operative Tribunal
Case number
981
Citation
[2023] KECPT 981 (KLR)
Decided
21 September 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a decision of the Cooperative TribunalCoramHon. Beatrice Kimemia, Hon. J. Mwatsama, Hon. Beatrice Sawe, Hon. Fridah Lotuiya, Hon. Philip Gichuki, Hon. Michael Chesikaw, Hon. Paul Aol
Holding

The application for injunction and prohibition is dismissed with costs, as the Claimant has failed to keep his own promises and has not acted on his promises to pay the loan.

Facts

The Claimant, Jacob Kirimi Thiora, obtained a loan from the 1st Respondent, United Nation Sacco Ltd, in 2016. He defaulted in repaying the loan, leading to the issuance of demand letters and statutory notices. The 2nd Respondent, Philips International Auctioneer, then sold the charged properties.

Issues

  1. Whether an injunction should issue restraining the 1st Respondent from advertising for sale or auctioning the charged properties, pending the determination of the suit.
  2. Whether the order of prohibition should issue prohibiting any dealings with these charged properties.
  3. Who bares the cost of the suit

Reasoning

The court found that the Claimant violated the terms of the loan agreement and did not suffer irreparable damage. The balance of convenience favored the Respondent.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for injunction and prohibition dismissed with costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Land Act 2012
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