1. Before the Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025. The applicant seeks orders for the maintenance of the status quo as well as interim injunctive relief restraining the respondent from repossessing certain motor vehicles financed under a loan agreement. The application is opposed.
2. There is no dispute that the parties entered into a Master Dealer Loan and Security Agreement, pursuant to which the applicant received facilities for the purchase of motor vehicles. It is also not in contention that the loan remains outstanding. The applicant’s primary contention is that he has not been furnished with loan statements and that there has been no proper reconciliation of the outstanding balance.
3. However, the respondent has presented a different factual narrative, supported by documentary evidence. Account statements spanning the period from 24th October 2022 to 23rd May 2025 have been annexed, clearly detailing the disbursements, repayments, and accruing balances. Additionally, the respondent has produced email correspondence demonstrating that both parties were engaged in reconciliation efforts, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.
4. Even assuming, arguendo, that a dispute exists as to the precise amount owing, the same would be a dispute over a liquidated and ascertainable sum. It is well-established that injunctive relief is not available where any loss or damage arising from the impugned conduct is compensable by an award of damages. See Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR.
5. On the issue of the balance of convenience, the Court is persuaded that it tilts in favour of allowing the respondent to exercise its contractual right to repossess the motor vehicles. These assets are of a depreciating nature, and the continued delay in recovery may result in a situation where the value of the vehicles falls below the outstanding debt, thereby prejudicing the respondent’s ability to recover the sums advanced.
6. In light of the foregoing, the applicant has failed to satisfy the established principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358.
Final Orders:
a) The Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025 is hereby dismissed.
b) The costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 17th DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
2. There is no dispute that the parties entered into a Master Dealer Loan and Security Agreement, pursuant to which the applicant received facilities for the purchase of motor vehicles. It is also not in contention that the loan remains outstanding. The applicant’s primary contention is that he has not been furnished with loan statements and that there has been no proper reconciliation of the outstanding balance.
3. However, the respondent has presented a different factual narrative, supported by documentary evidence. Account statements spanning the period from 24th October 2022 to 23rd May 2025 have been annexed, clearly detailing the disbursements, repayments, and accruing balances. Additionally, the respondent has produced email correspondence demonstrating that both parties were engaged in reconciliation efforts, contrary to the applicant’s assertions.
4. Even assuming, arguendo, that a dispute exists as to the precise amount owing, the same would be a dispute over a liquidated and ascertainable sum. It is well-established that injunctive relief is not available where any loss or damage arising from the impugned conduct is compensable by an award of damages. See Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR.
5. On the issue of the balance of convenience, the Court is persuaded that it tilts in favour of allowing the respondent to exercise its contractual right to repossess the motor vehicles. These assets are of a depreciating nature, and the continued delay in recovery may result in a situation where the value of the vehicles falls below the outstanding debt, thereby prejudicing the respondent’s ability to recover the sums advanced.
6. In light of the foregoing, the applicant has failed to satisfy the established principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358.
Final Orders:
a) The Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025 is hereby dismissed.
b) The costs of the application shall be borne by the applicant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 17th DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE