For a business operating from charged premises, permission to pursue an appeal and protection against a sale answer different questions. A successful procedural application may reopen a route to challenge an earlier ruling without stopping enforcement. That distinction is central to Kenmot Spares Limited v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited.
On 6 March 2026, a single judge of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi decided Civil Application No. NAI E668 of 2025. The ruling concerned permission to file a notice of appeal late, not the merits of the intended appeal or a final determination of the lending dispute.
Why the company sought more time
The premises were on Kirinyaga Road in Nairobi. In the grounds reproduced by the court, Kenmot described operating an industrial spare-parts business there and using the property as security for a lending facility. It disputed aspects of the proposed realization of that security.
The ruling records the company's account that the High Court had dismissed its injunction application in HCCOMM E339 of 2024. Kenmot wanted to challenge that ruling but had not filed its notice of appeal in time. Its explanation centred on delayed communication of the ruling and subsequent steps to instruct new advocates.
These opening grounds explain what the applicant put forward. They should not be read as appellate findings that the bank acted unlawfully, that the debt calculations were wrong, or that professional misconduct had been established. The background and requested relief appear in the Judiciary collection's NAI E668/2025 ruling, printed pages 1–5, paragraphs 1–2.
What the judge decided
The judge considered the explanation for the delay, noted that it had not been refuted, and found no material suggesting that Kenmot had failed to follow up diligently. For this procedural application, the judge treated the communication lapse as an honest mistake and considered the explanation sufficient to allow the late notice. That reasoning addressed access to the appeal process, not whether the intended appeal would succeed.
The operative orders had three parts:
- Kenmot received leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal.
- The annexed draft notice was deemed duly filed and served upon payment of the requisite fees.
- Costs of the application were to abide in the intended appeal.
The fee condition matters: this ruling alone does not establish that payment later occurred. The reasoning and conditional orders are in NAI E668/2025, printed pages 5–7, paragraphs 5–7.
Why this was not an injunction
Kenmot also sought temporary restraint against dealings with the premises pending determination of this application. In paragraph 7, the judge described that prayer as moribund because of the ruling. It did not become protection lasting through the intended appeal.
No injunction or stay was granted in the final orders. Equally, this account cannot establish that an auction subsequently happened or that enforcement is currently unrestricted. Later fee payment, appeal steps, protective orders, sale events and title changes have not been checked.
Questions for a property decision
For an owner, lender or prospective buyer reviewing a litigation update, the useful question is not simply whether an application succeeded. Ask an advocate what each operative order changes:
- Does it permit a procedural step, or actually restrain a sale?
- Is its effect conditional on payment or another act, and what evidence confirms compliance?
- What later court orders and current property records need checking before a decision?
Keep the ruling, evidence of compliance and subsequent developments distinct rather than treating one favourable headline as a complete status report.
See how ArdhiScore works for monitoring support from available court, gazette and field evidence, alongside professional diligence. Relevant evidence may be incomplete or unavailable; monitoring does not guarantee access, comprehensive coverage, prevention of a sale or valid title. This case note is an explanation of a dated ruling, not advice on anyone's present rights.