Land offered as loan security can also support a working business or carry family significance. Those interests make enforcement consequential, but describing serious potential harm is not the same as proving the requirements for an injunction pending appeal.
In Njeru Industries Limited and two others v I & M Bank Limited, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. NAI E548 of 2025, ruling dated 12 June 2026, the court dismissed an application for interim injunctive relief with costs. The application concerned charged land, equipment and control of a business. The court expressly avoided deciding the merits of the intended appeal. (Paragraphs 1-3, 16.)
What the applicants wanted preserved
The applicants sought orders restraining interference with company management, appointment of administrators and disposal of charged properties and movable assets. They wanted the status quo maintained while the dispute continued. Their application followed a High Court ruling that had refused an injunction and vacated interim orders. (Paragraphs 1-2, 7.)
They disputed the debt position, alleging irregular interest charges, mishandled repayments and coercion surrounding a settlement deed. They also said some charged properties belonged to a deceased person's estate and that enforcement would prejudice beneficiaries, business operations and livelihoods. These were contested allegations, not established findings of lender misconduct. (Paragraphs 2-3, 6, 8-9.)
The bank opposed relief. It relied on loan facilities, default and negotiated settlement documents acknowledging indebtedness. It denied wrongdoing and maintained that the security was available for lawful recovery. That competing account mattered because an unresolved dispute does not automatically suspend enforcement. (Paragraphs 4-6, 10-11.)
Two requirements, not one general hardship test
The Court of Appeal explained that rule 5(2)(b) required both an arguable intended appeal and a demonstration that refusing relief would render a successful appeal nugatory. In practical terms, the second question asks whether eventual success would be deprived of meaningful effect without present protection. An arguable appeal need not be certain to succeed, but both requirements must be satisfied. (Paragraph 12.)
On arguability, the court considered the secured facilities, default and restructuring documents. Those documents appeared to acknowledge indebtedness and agreed repayment terms. The allegations concerning fraud, coercion and unconscionability had not been sufficiently supported at the interlocutory stage. The court found no demonstrated arguable question meeting even the low, mandatory threshold. (Paragraph 14.)
This was a decision about temporary relief on the material then presented. It should not be rewritten as a final accounting judgment, a determination of every disputed interest charge, or a conclusive rejection of every possible challenge to the settlement.
Why the claimed harm was insufficient
The court separately considered the second requirement, assuming without deciding that an arguable appeal existed. It noted that the properties and business assets had been voluntarily offered as security. The applicants had not shown that resulting loss would be irreversible or incapable of adequate monetary compensation. (Paragraph 15.)
The court also accepted the bank's financial ability to make restitution if the appeal ultimately succeeded. It found that the concerns about business disruption, goodwill and estate interests had not been sufficiently demonstrated to show that an eventual successful appeal would be ineffective. That is narrower than saying family or business consequences never matter. (Paragraph 15.)
Read the outcome at its actual level
The motion was dismissed with costs; the intended appeal itself was not decided. The ruling does not establish that administrators subsequently took control, that a sale occurred, or that any purchaser obtained good title. It identifies no parcel county, and this account has not checked later proceedings. (Paragraph 16.)
For owners, lenders and advisers, a useful litigation record distinguishes disputed liabilities, security documents and the protection actually ordered. See how ArdhiScore works with parcel intelligence from available court, gazette and field evidence. Coverage varies; it is not access to private bank records, a complete title check or a substitute for professional advice.