A court can accept that a proposed appeal raises a real question and still refuse to stop a proposed sale. For anyone assessing charged land, "we have an arguable appeal" is not the same information as "an injunction has been granted".
That distinction shaped Gilgil Treatment Industries Limited v Bank of India & another [2026] KECA 1556 (KLR). On 31 July 2026, the Court of Appeal at Eldoret refused an application to restrain dealings with three charged properties pending an intended appeal.
The dispute concerned a sequence of notices
The properties were Eldoret Municipality Blocks 9/2501, 9/2502 and 9/2522. The company challenged the validity and service of statutory notices and the refusal of an injunction by the High Court.
The bank maintained that the notices were valid, had been served and followed a continuing payment default. The appellate ruling, paragraphs 1-5, records those competing positions.
The earlier High Court ruling of 19 March 2026, [2026] KEHC 3763 (KLR), had considered the notices and evidence of posting and service. At paragraphs 68-73, it found the relevant requirements satisfied for that application and dismissed the request for interim relief with costs. Having found no prima facie case, it did not proceed to determine irreparable loss or the balance of convenience.
That procedural history matters, but it should not obscure the different question before the appellate court: whether interim protection should be granted pending the proposed appeal.
The notice questions passed the first test
At paragraphs 14-15 of the appellate ruling, the court found the proposed notice and injunction questions arguable. It expressly distinguished that assessment from deciding whether those arguments would ultimately succeed.
This was not an appellate finding that the notices were defective. Nor was it a final appellate endorsement of every step in the bank's process. The court was applying the threshold for interim relief, not hearing the intended appeal on its merits.
For a due-diligence record, those distinctions should remain visible. A party's allegation, a lower-court finding, an arguability assessment and a final appeal decision carry different meanings.
Why interim protection was still refused
The applicant also had to show that refusing protection would render a successful appeal ineffective. The court considered the fact that these properties had been offered as security, the financial nature of the possible loss and the bank's ability to compensate.
Paragraph 19 records counsel's concession that money remained owed, although the amount was disputed. The court found that the relevant compensation arguments had not been rebutted and that inability of the bank to pay damages had not been demonstrated.
It therefore concluded that the second requirement was not satisfied. Paragraph 21 dismissed the motion with costs to the respondents.
The bank had also alleged abusive parallel proceedings. Paragraph 20 expressly declined to determine that question. The dismissal should not be retold as a judicial finding that every such allegation was proved.
A dispute does not itself change the operative position
For a buyer, borrower or lender, the practical enquiry includes the charge documents, notices, evidence of service and the precise orders actually made. A pending argument about one document does not tell you whether a court has restrained a particular proposed transaction.
This article does not confirm that an auction occurred, a transfer was registered or the intended appeal was decided. It also does not provide a general notice-period calculation: the underlying record contains differing dates and descriptions that require case-specific professional assessment.
ArdhiScore can help organise parcel references, dated court material and questions requiring further evidence. It does not adjudicate notice validity, settle a bank account or guarantee an injunction, repayment outcome or complete litigation coverage.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Use evidence organisation to support official enquiries and legal advice, not as a promise that screening would have prevented enforcement. This article is not legal advice.