Moses Mwita Mahiri v Momentum Credit Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped a lender from selling a borrower's car, finding he may have repaid triple the loan principal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a prima facie case has been established
- 2.Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages
- 3.Where the balance of convenience lies
- 4.Whether the respondent is in contempt of court
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case
Established - the applicant's claims of unlawful repossession and violation of the in duplum rule call for an explanation from the respondent
The court found the parties' accounts of due process in repossession and the in duplum allegations irreconcilable on the affidavits. Such contested issues could only be determined after hearing the parties, which sufficed to show an apparently infringed right requiring rebuttal.
Irreparable loss
Found - alleged overpayment and violation of legal doctrines constitute loss not compensable by damages
The court reasoned that if the applicant had overpaid the loan, he would suffer emotional damage not compensable in damages, and that damages would be no bar where the repossession process was itself contrary to doctrines of law. If the respondent prevailed, it could recover the money due.
Balance of convenience
Tilts in favour of the applicant because he claims to have repaid triple the principal amount
The court accepted the applicant's claim of having repaid triple the principal as tipping the balance of convenience in his favour, against the respondent's assertion that the applicant was in arrears.
Contempt of court
Refused - the Milimani court allegedly lacked territorial jurisdiction and contempt should be pursued in the issuing court
The court held that where a court has no jurisdiction, another court cannot punish a party for orders from such proceedings, and contempt proceedings ought to be initiated in the court that issued the orders. It also found the prayer abandoned for lack of submissions.
Legal principles established
#- The applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially establish a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude there exists a right apparently infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal
- A court cannot punish contempt of orders issued by another court lacking territorial jurisdiction; contempt proceedings belong in the issuing court
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary conservatory injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, hired auctioneers, or proxies from proclaiming, advertising, transferring, selling or cannibalizing motor vehicle registration number KDJ 293V pending the final hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the magistrates' court over the small claims/commercial suit and interlocutory application
Relief refused
#Order that the respondent be held in formal contempt of court and penalized for violating stay orders issued on 29th July 2026
The Milimani court allegedly lacked territorial jurisdiction over the orders said to have been breached; contempt proceedings should be initiated in the issuing court; counsel also deemed to have abandoned the prayer
Costs
The costs of this application be borne by the respondent
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.
THAT a temporary conservatory injunction order is hereby issued restraining the defendant, its agents, hired auctioneers, or proxies from proclaiming, advertising, transferring, selling or cannibalizing motor vehicle registration number KDJ 293V pending the final hearing and determination of the main suit.
THAT the costs of this application be borne by the respondent.
Thus I find that the plaintiff/applicant has been able to establish a prima facie case.
Thus where a court has no jurisdiction another court cannot punish a party for orders emanating from such proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Contradictory treatment of the contempt submissions
Date of delivery contains a typographical error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Moses Mwita Mahiri v Momentum Credit Limited", Case Analysis (2026). MCCOMMSU NO. E004 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/967/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.