Equip Agencies Limited v I&M Bank Limited (Civil Application E103 of 2025) [2025] KECA 585 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to stop I&M Bank from selling Equip Agencies' charged properties, ruling the appeal had no chance of success.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, if the intended appeal succeeds, it will be rendered nugatory unless stay of execution and injunctive orders are granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was found frivolous and not arguable because the dispute is res judicata, the debt is admitted, and a Deed of Settlement of 10th June 2021 has not been honoured
The court reviewed the multiplicity of rulings and judgments issued by the High Court and the Court of Appeal since 2017 in the same dispute, including dismissals of similar injunction applications by Nzioka, Mwita and Mulwa JJ., judgments by Majanja J. pursuant to a Deed of Settlement, and a withdrawn appeal. It concluded the applicant's indebtedness was admitted and expressly acknowledged in the Deed of Settlement, making the res judicata ground unanswerable and the intended appeal not arguable.
Nugatory-ness of the intended appeal
The nugatory limb fails because the value of the suit properties is known and the respondent bank can pay damages if the appeal succeeds
Assuming without deciding that the intended appeal was arguable, the court applied the second limb of the stay test. The suit properties have ascertainable value and the respondent is a reputable commercial bank capable of satisfying any damages award, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the sale proceeded and the applicant ultimately succeeded.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending an intended appeal must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory unless the orders are granted
- Where the respondent is a reputable commercial bank able to pay damages, a successful intended appeal will not be rendered nugatory for want of an injunction against the statutory power of sale
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of execution and injunction pending an intended appeal is dismissed
- 2.The applicant shall bear the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Nairobi HCCOMM No. 420 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent appellate jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal (rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules framework invoked through the two-limb test)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the High Court ruling of 24th February 2025 pending an intended appeal
The intended appeal is frivolous and not arguable; the dispute is res judicata and the debt is admitted
Injunction restraining the respondent from exercising its statutory power of sale over the suit properties
Even assuming the appeal were arguable, it would not be rendered nugatory because the respondent is a reputable bank able to pay damages
Costs
The applicant shall bear the costs of the application
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
To succeed in an application of this nature, the applicant must satisfy this Court that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable, and that unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal, if successful, shall be rendered nugatory.
Having considered the numerous rulings and judgments that have been rendered by the High Court and this Court in respect of this same dispute, we do not entertain any doubt that the intended appeal is frivolous and not arguable.
We are satisfied that the applicant's application is unmeritorious and ought to be dismissed, which we hereby do. The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment at one point refers to the ruling of 24th February 2024 while the subject ruling is consistently dated 24th February 2025, an apparent date typographical inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Equip Agencies Ltd & 4 others v I&M Bank Ltd & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E361 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1526 (KLR)[2026] KECA 1526 (KLR)31 Jul 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equip Agencies Limited v I&M Bank Limited (Civil Application E103 of 2025) [2025] KECA 585 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Civil Application (Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2025) arising from Nairobi HCCOMM No. 420 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/585/eng@2025-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.