RULING (ON INTERIM ORDERS)
1. Before the Court is a Notice of Motion dated 12th December 2024, brought under a certificate of urgency, in which the applicant seeks, inter alia, an interim order restraining the respondent from transferring, using, or otherwise dealing with the sum of USD 403,097.00 pending the hearing and determination of the application.
2. On the face of the pleadings, and upon considering the oral submissions made by counsel on 28th July 2025, it is not in dispute that a deposit of the said sum was made by the applicant into bank Account No.01000028478 held at Stanbic Bank, Chiromo Branch. However, there is significant contestation as to the purpose of the deposit, the relationship between the parties, and the legal basis of the underlying transaction.
3. The Court has also been invited to consider whether this matter is sub judice in light of proceedings pending in Nairobi HCCC No. E001 of 2024, and whether there exists a similar freezing order in that suit. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the Court’s jurisdiction on that basis.
4. Furthermore, the communication allegedly issued by the Bank, is itself disputed, and so too is the propriety of enjoining the Bank to these proceedings. The question of whether the Bank is a necessary party in the context of the disputed transaction is a substantive issue requiring careful consideration and cannot be resolved at this interim stage.
5. What emerges clearly is that there is more than meets the eye in this matter. The application raises complex and intertwined factual and legal issues that go to the root of the parties' respective rights and obligations. It is only fair and just that the Court preserves the subject matter in the interim to ensure that the ultimate determination is not rendered nugatory.
6. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case warranting protection of the disputed funds. Any prejudice to the respondent (if at all) is outweighed by the risk of dissipation of funds and potential frustration of the Court’s processes if interim relief is denied.
7. Accordingly, and pending the hearing and determination of the application:
An interim order is hereby issued restraining the respondent by itself, its agents or servants from using, transferring, or in any other manner dealing with the sum of USD 403,097.00 held in the account at Stanbic Bank, Chiromo Branch.
8. For the avoidance of doubt, as directed by this Court on 28th July 2025, the Court will consider the preliminary objection in priority and subject to the outcome of the objection, the other further prayers in the application of 12th December 2025. Ruling will be delivered on 7th November 2025.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
1. Before the Court is a Notice of Motion dated 12th December 2024, brought under a certificate of urgency, in which the applicant seeks, inter alia, an interim order restraining the respondent from transferring, using, or otherwise dealing with the sum of USD 403,097.00 pending the hearing and determination of the application.
2. On the face of the pleadings, and upon considering the oral submissions made by counsel on 28th July 2025, it is not in dispute that a deposit of the said sum was made by the applicant into bank Account No.01000028478 held at Stanbic Bank, Chiromo Branch. However, there is significant contestation as to the purpose of the deposit, the relationship between the parties, and the legal basis of the underlying transaction.
3. The Court has also been invited to consider whether this matter is sub judice in light of proceedings pending in Nairobi HCCC No. E001 of 2024, and whether there exists a similar freezing order in that suit. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the Court’s jurisdiction on that basis.
4. Furthermore, the communication allegedly issued by the Bank, is itself disputed, and so too is the propriety of enjoining the Bank to these proceedings. The question of whether the Bank is a necessary party in the context of the disputed transaction is a substantive issue requiring careful consideration and cannot be resolved at this interim stage.
5. What emerges clearly is that there is more than meets the eye in this matter. The application raises complex and intertwined factual and legal issues that go to the root of the parties' respective rights and obligations. It is only fair and just that the Court preserves the subject matter in the interim to ensure that the ultimate determination is not rendered nugatory.
6. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has established a prima facie case warranting protection of the disputed funds. Any prejudice to the respondent (if at all) is outweighed by the risk of dissipation of funds and potential frustration of the Court’s processes if interim relief is denied.
7. Accordingly, and pending the hearing and determination of the application:
An interim order is hereby issued restraining the respondent by itself, its agents or servants from using, transferring, or in any other manner dealing with the sum of USD 403,097.00 held in the account at Stanbic Bank, Chiromo Branch.
8. For the avoidance of doubt, as directed by this Court on 28th July 2025, the Court will consider the preliminary objection in priority and subject to the outcome of the objection, the other further prayers in the application of 12th December 2025. Ruling will be delivered on 7th November 2025.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE