Introduction and Background
1. I have considered the application dated 14th January 2026 which seeks injunctive relief against the Respondent Bank, together with the supporting affidavit of HENRY OBANYI sworn on even date. The application is opposed by way of a replying affidavit sworn by CHRISTINE WAHOME on 26th January 2026 which I have equally considered.
Analysis and Determination
2. The Applicant states that on 19th March 2023, the Respondent Bank, sold the property known as LR No. 37/242/9, The Stand Leisure Hotel along Gandhi Avenue, Nairobi West, (the suit property), at a price of Kshs. 120,000,000/-, as evidenced by correspondence from the auctioneers. Despite this sale, the Bank failed to account for the proceeds and has unlawfully re-advertised the same property for another auction scheduled on 28th January 2025, thereby abusing its statutory power of sale.
3. The Applicant contends that once a bid is accepted at auction, a valid and binding contract of sale is formed, which extinguishes the chargor’s equity of redemption, and therefore the statutory power of sale cannot be exercised again. The Applicant further asserts that the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer creates an immediate binding contract between the chargor and the highest bidder, and that any subsequent attempt to re-advertise the property without compliance with Section 74(1) of the Registered Land Act, Cap 300, is unlawful and invalid.
4. The Bank acknowledges the auction conducted on 19th March 2025 and affirms that the Purchaser duly remitted the deposit of Kshs. 12,000,000/- in compliance with the Conditions of Sale. The Purchaser was thereafter obligated to pay the balance of the purchase price within 90 days of the auction, time being of the essence. However, the Purchaser failed to honour this obligation, thereby breaching the express terms of the contract. In accordance with Condition 6 of the Conditions of Sale, the Respondent issued a written notice rescinding the contract and consequently became entitled to re-sell the property.
5. The Bank further refutes the Applicant’s assertion that it failed to account for the sale proceeds, clarifying that the forfeited deposit was duly applied towards reducing the outstanding debt, as demonstrated by the annexed Statements of Account.
6. The Bank emphasizes that this Court, alongside the High Court in HCCOMM/E201/2025 and the Court of Appeal, has already affirmed its right to proceed with the sale of the charged properties. In view of the Applicant’s persistent and unmeritorious filings, the Bank urges the Court to declare the Applicant a vexatious litigant, thereby restraining him from instituting any further suits or applications without prior leave of the Court. The Bank emphasizes that the Applicant has repeatedly engaged the judicial process through multiple proceedings, including Civil Appeal No. E055 of 2025, HCCOMM/E598/2024, HCCOMM/E201/2025, MCCC/E1388/2025, and MCCC/E3506/2025, all directed against the Respondent.
7. Additionally, the Bank refutes the Applicant’s allegation that the charged properties were not properly valued, pointing out that it engaged Messrs. Value Line Consulting Limited, a reputable firm of valuers, whose reports on LR No. 37/242/9 in Nairobi West and Title No. Nairobi/Block 72/1713 in Langata have been produced. The Respondent maintains that it has fully complied with all statutory procedures in the intended sale, and that the present application is merely another attempt by the Applicant to secure injunctions that have already been declined by this and other courts. Accordingly, the Bank contends that the application is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained either in law or equity.
8. Having reviewed the evidence presented by the Bank, it is clear that the issue of injunction was conclusively determined by this Court in its Ruling of 19th May 2025. That issue is therefore not before me for determination.
9. The Applicant’s contention that the Bank failed to account for the proceeds of the auction of 19th March is without merit. A letter dated 18th September 2025 from the Bank’s Advocates confirms that the Purchaser of the suit property did not remit the balance of the purchase price within the 90 days stipulated under the Conditions of Sale, thereby necessitating cancellation of the sale. Consequently, there was no binding contractual obligation between the Bank and the Purchaser. In any event, even if such an obligation were to be inferred, the right to enforce it would rest with the Purchaser and not the Applicant.
10. In light of the evidence presented, and in the absence of any material presented by the Applicant to the contrary, I am satisfied that the forfeited deposit from the aborted auction was duly applied by the Bank towards repayment of the outstanding loan, as reflected in the statements of account on record.
11. Once the deposit was appropriated in this manner, the Bank was under no obligation to issue fresh statutory notices to the Applicant under the Registered Land Act, since the statutory power of sale had already been properly invoked. The Applicant’s contention that fresh notices were required is therefore unfounded. Similarly, I find no merit in the argument that the Bank was required to undertake a fresh valuation of the suit property following the failure of the auction.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to meet the threshold for the grant of an injunction as set out in the Giella v Cassman Brown case. No prima facie case has been established to warrant the intervention of this Court. Moreover, any loss that may arise from the intended auction is purely monetary in nature, is quantifiable, and can adequately be compensated by way of damages. In addition, the balance of convenience clearly favours permitting the auction to proceed, as halting the process would only serve to escalate the outstanding debt and prejudice the Respondent’s right to realize its security.
Disposition
13. Accordingly, the application dated 14th January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
1. I have considered the application dated 14th January 2026 which seeks injunctive relief against the Respondent Bank, together with the supporting affidavit of HENRY OBANYI sworn on even date. The application is opposed by way of a replying affidavit sworn by CHRISTINE WAHOME on 26th January 2026 which I have equally considered.
Analysis and Determination
2. The Applicant states that on 19th March 2023, the Respondent Bank, sold the property known as LR No. 37/242/9, The Stand Leisure Hotel along Gandhi Avenue, Nairobi West, (the suit property), at a price of Kshs. 120,000,000/-, as evidenced by correspondence from the auctioneers. Despite this sale, the Bank failed to account for the proceeds and has unlawfully re-advertised the same property for another auction scheduled on 28th January 2025, thereby abusing its statutory power of sale.
3. The Applicant contends that once a bid is accepted at auction, a valid and binding contract of sale is formed, which extinguishes the chargor’s equity of redemption, and therefore the statutory power of sale cannot be exercised again. The Applicant further asserts that the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer creates an immediate binding contract between the chargor and the highest bidder, and that any subsequent attempt to re-advertise the property without compliance with Section 74(1) of the Registered Land Act, Cap 300, is unlawful and invalid.
4. The Bank acknowledges the auction conducted on 19th March 2025 and affirms that the Purchaser duly remitted the deposit of Kshs. 12,000,000/- in compliance with the Conditions of Sale. The Purchaser was thereafter obligated to pay the balance of the purchase price within 90 days of the auction, time being of the essence. However, the Purchaser failed to honour this obligation, thereby breaching the express terms of the contract. In accordance with Condition 6 of the Conditions of Sale, the Respondent issued a written notice rescinding the contract and consequently became entitled to re-sell the property.
5. The Bank further refutes the Applicant’s assertion that it failed to account for the sale proceeds, clarifying that the forfeited deposit was duly applied towards reducing the outstanding debt, as demonstrated by the annexed Statements of Account.
6. The Bank emphasizes that this Court, alongside the High Court in HCCOMM/E201/2025 and the Court of Appeal, has already affirmed its right to proceed with the sale of the charged properties. In view of the Applicant’s persistent and unmeritorious filings, the Bank urges the Court to declare the Applicant a vexatious litigant, thereby restraining him from instituting any further suits or applications without prior leave of the Court. The Bank emphasizes that the Applicant has repeatedly engaged the judicial process through multiple proceedings, including Civil Appeal No. E055 of 2025, HCCOMM/E598/2024, HCCOMM/E201/2025, MCCC/E1388/2025, and MCCC/E3506/2025, all directed against the Respondent.
7. Additionally, the Bank refutes the Applicant’s allegation that the charged properties were not properly valued, pointing out that it engaged Messrs. Value Line Consulting Limited, a reputable firm of valuers, whose reports on LR No. 37/242/9 in Nairobi West and Title No. Nairobi/Block 72/1713 in Langata have been produced. The Respondent maintains that it has fully complied with all statutory procedures in the intended sale, and that the present application is merely another attempt by the Applicant to secure injunctions that have already been declined by this and other courts. Accordingly, the Bank contends that the application is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained either in law or equity.
8. Having reviewed the evidence presented by the Bank, it is clear that the issue of injunction was conclusively determined by this Court in its Ruling of 19th May 2025. That issue is therefore not before me for determination.
9. The Applicant’s contention that the Bank failed to account for the proceeds of the auction of 19th March is without merit. A letter dated 18th September 2025 from the Bank’s Advocates confirms that the Purchaser of the suit property did not remit the balance of the purchase price within the 90 days stipulated under the Conditions of Sale, thereby necessitating cancellation of the sale. Consequently, there was no binding contractual obligation between the Bank and the Purchaser. In any event, even if such an obligation were to be inferred, the right to enforce it would rest with the Purchaser and not the Applicant.
10. In light of the evidence presented, and in the absence of any material presented by the Applicant to the contrary, I am satisfied that the forfeited deposit from the aborted auction was duly applied by the Bank towards repayment of the outstanding loan, as reflected in the statements of account on record.
11. Once the deposit was appropriated in this manner, the Bank was under no obligation to issue fresh statutory notices to the Applicant under the Registered Land Act, since the statutory power of sale had already been properly invoked. The Applicant’s contention that fresh notices were required is therefore unfounded. Similarly, I find no merit in the argument that the Bank was required to undertake a fresh valuation of the suit property following the failure of the auction.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to meet the threshold for the grant of an injunction as set out in the Giella v Cassman Brown case. No prima facie case has been established to warrant the intervention of this Court. Moreover, any loss that may arise from the intended auction is purely monetary in nature, is quantifiable, and can adequately be compensated by way of damages. In addition, the balance of convenience clearly favours permitting the auction to proceed, as halting the process would only serve to escalate the outstanding debt and prejudice the Respondent’s right to realize its security.
Disposition
13. Accordingly, the application dated 14th January 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.