RULING
1. Having considered the Notice of Motion dated 23/7/2025, brought under certificate of urgency, the supporting affidavit and the consent dated 4th March 2025 which was adopted as an order of the Court on 15th April 2025, and also having considered the replying affidavit filed by the defendant, I am not persuaded that the plaintiffs at this stage have established a prima facie case with a probability of success, more so, since the terms of the consent were very clear and unambiguous. I do not agree with their Counsel that they will suffer irreparable loss because the deponent will be rendered homeless.
2. The release of discharge of charge forms for the property Title No. L.R. No. Ngong/Ngong/32706 and release of the original title documents for the property known as L.R. Karingani/Ndangani/9217&9161 was a condition that was subject to the plaintiffs paying Kshs.72,806,114.00 to the defendant on or before 7/3/2025, which they did not.
3. Since the plaintiffs bound themselves to the terms of the consent dated 4th March 2025, which terms they did not meet, the sale of the property L.R. No.13080/9(IR 211058) Resurrection Garden area, Karen Nairobi scheduled for today morning should proceed.
4. The conditions set out in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) E.A 358, have not been met by the plaintiffs. They do not stand to suffer any irreparable loss since they willingly entered into a consent. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the defendant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI on this 29TH day of JULY, 2025. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.
NJOKI MWANGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Mwinzi for the plaintiffs/applicants
Mr. Mbaji for the defendant
Ms B. Wokabi – Court Assistant
1. Having considered the Notice of Motion dated 23/7/2025, brought under certificate of urgency, the supporting affidavit and the consent dated 4th March 2025 which was adopted as an order of the Court on 15th April 2025, and also having considered the replying affidavit filed by the defendant, I am not persuaded that the plaintiffs at this stage have established a prima facie case with a probability of success, more so, since the terms of the consent were very clear and unambiguous. I do not agree with their Counsel that they will suffer irreparable loss because the deponent will be rendered homeless.
2. The release of discharge of charge forms for the property Title No. L.R. No. Ngong/Ngong/32706 and release of the original title documents for the property known as L.R. Karingani/Ndangani/9217&9161 was a condition that was subject to the plaintiffs paying Kshs.72,806,114.00 to the defendant on or before 7/3/2025, which they did not.
3. Since the plaintiffs bound themselves to the terms of the consent dated 4th March 2025, which terms they did not meet, the sale of the property L.R. No.13080/9(IR 211058) Resurrection Garden area, Karen Nairobi scheduled for today morning should proceed.
4. The conditions set out in the case of Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) E.A 358, have not been met by the plaintiffs. They do not stand to suffer any irreparable loss since they willingly entered into a consent. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of the defendant.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI on this 29TH day of JULY, 2025. Ruling delivered through Microsoft Teams Online Platform.
NJOKI MWANGI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Mwinzi for the plaintiffs/applicants
Mr. Mbaji for the defendant
Ms B. Wokabi – Court Assistant