1. I have perused the Certificate of Urgency filed on 30th July 2025 in respect of the application dated 22nd July 2025 that I had previously considered, certified urgent and fixed for hearing on 29th July 2025. I note that on the said date, none of the parties were present and that as a result, I fixed the matter for mention on 2nd October 2025 and ordered that notice be issued.
2. In the certificate of urgency, just as in the previous application, the applicant avers that the repossession of the plaintiff/applicant's motor vehicles is contrary to the provisions of the law, in particular to the Auctioneers Rules and section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the plaintiff/applicant seeks to have interim orders issued pending the hearing interpartes of the said application to obviate what it sees as continuing wrongs.
3. Section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides as follows:-
"(1) Where a consumer under a future performance agreement has paid two-thirds or more of his or her payment obligation as fixed by the agreement, any provision in the agreement, or in any security agreement incidental to the agreement, under which the supplier may retake possession of or resell the goods or services upon default in payment by the consumer is not enforceable except by leave obtained from the High Court."
4. I am unable to tell at this point whether such leave was sought and obtained from the High Court by the 1st defendant/respondent, or if indeed the provisions of section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act had crystallised. The plaintiff/applicant has averred that the respondents have already repossessed some of the motor vehicles and may continue to do so unless restrained by this Court. Given the continuing nature of the repossessions it would be in the interest of justice to issue an injunction pending the hearing interpartes of the application dated 22nd July 2025. Consequently:-
(a)I recertify the matter as urgent and consider it exparte ;
(b) Pending the hearing of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 interpartes, an interim order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents Mumu Auctioneers, their officers, servants or any other person acting on behalf of the defendants from repossessing, auctioning and/or selling the Plaintiff's motor vehicles namely KBY 165U, KBY 166U, KCF 409Y, KCF 413Y, KCF 416Y, KCF 417Y, KCF 731M, KCF 732M, KCF 733М, KCF 734M, KCF735M, KCF 736M, KCF 738M, KCF 739M, KCF 740M, KCF 742М, KCF 743M, ZE 6537, ZE 6538, XF 2631, ZF 2646, ZF 2647, ZF 2648, ZF 2651, and ZF 2655; and
(c) I order that the Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 be served forthwith, not later than 1300 hours EAT on 31st July 2025 , for hearing interpartes on 1st August 2025.
5. It is so ordered.
2. In the certificate of urgency, just as in the previous application, the applicant avers that the repossession of the plaintiff/applicant's motor vehicles is contrary to the provisions of the law, in particular to the Auctioneers Rules and section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the plaintiff/applicant seeks to have interim orders issued pending the hearing interpartes of the said application to obviate what it sees as continuing wrongs.
3. Section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides as follows:-
"(1) Where a consumer under a future performance agreement has paid two-thirds or more of his or her payment obligation as fixed by the agreement, any provision in the agreement, or in any security agreement incidental to the agreement, under which the supplier may retake possession of or resell the goods or services upon default in payment by the consumer is not enforceable except by leave obtained from the High Court."
4. I am unable to tell at this point whether such leave was sought and obtained from the High Court by the 1st defendant/respondent, or if indeed the provisions of section 20(1) of the Consumer Protection Act had crystallised. The plaintiff/applicant has averred that the respondents have already repossessed some of the motor vehicles and may continue to do so unless restrained by this Court. Given the continuing nature of the repossessions it would be in the interest of justice to issue an injunction pending the hearing interpartes of the application dated 22nd July 2025. Consequently:-
(a)I recertify the matter as urgent and consider it exparte ;
(b) Pending the hearing of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 interpartes, an interim order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendants by themselves, their agents Mumu Auctioneers, their officers, servants or any other person acting on behalf of the defendants from repossessing, auctioning and/or selling the Plaintiff's motor vehicles namely KBY 165U, KBY 166U, KCF 409Y, KCF 413Y, KCF 416Y, KCF 417Y, KCF 731M, KCF 732M, KCF 733М, KCF 734M, KCF735M, KCF 736M, KCF 738M, KCF 739M, KCF 740M, KCF 742М, KCF 743M, ZE 6537, ZE 6538, XF 2631, ZF 2646, ZF 2647, ZF 2648, ZF 2651, and ZF 2655; and
(c) I order that the Notice of Motion dated 22nd July 2025 be served forthwith, not later than 1300 hours EAT on 31st July 2025 , for hearing interpartes on 1st August 2025.
5. It is so ordered.