A rental property can generate competing instructions long before an appeal is decided. For a buyer, lender or property manager, the question is not simply whether litigation exists. It is what the court has actually ordered, who claims authority to act, and whether the evidence supports the position being presented.
The application was not the appeal
In Eric Agbeko & 2 others v Farouk Ravate & 2 others, the Court of Appeal at Nairobi considered an ancillary request concerning control of a Nairobi rental property. The reference is Civil Application No. 29 of 2020, ruling of 24 April 2020, available through the Judiciary's official decision collection. The caption and dated closing appear on printed pages 1 and 6; no neutral citation is asserted here.
The background involved a High Court decision about company directors and shares, with consequences for the company's property. The applicants had sought a stay of execution pending an intended appeal. While that stay ruling remained reserved, they returned for temporary restoration of the situation at the date of the High Court judgment, also requesting police assistance. Those were requests, not remedies granted by this ruling (printed pages 1–2).
Competing instructions were not proof of entitlement
The applicants described a dispute between former and replacement managing agents, saying tenants were uncertain whom to pay. They also alleged harassment and intimidation. Those allegations are not treated here as established misconduct. Spire Bank, the third respondent, opposed relief, relying on changed shareholding and proceedings in another court to argue that the applicants were abusing the process (printed pages 2–3).
The court accepted that it had inherent power to make ancillary preservation orders. But the phrase “status quo” did not identify, by itself, what should be preserved. The court needed a defined state of affairs and said it had not been told what the requested earlier position actually was. That evidential problem was central to the refusal, rather than a general rule against preservation orders (printed page 4).
Why restoration was refused
The court also considered changed shareholding, the completed eviction of the first two applicants, and overlapping orders obtained in other proceedings. It concluded that restoration would increase confusion. Agreeing with the bank's abuse-of-process objection, it found the applicants undeserving of the ancillary equitable remedy (printed page 5).
The application was dismissed with costs to Spire Bank (printed page 6). The court did not grant restoration or the requested police assistance. This decision did not determine the reserved stay application or the final appeal.
Source limits matter: page 2 contains a chronology inconsistency; page 5 opens with an inconsistent party label; and page 1's share-transfer wording is unclear. This note does not reconstruct those details or infer present ownership from them. Later proceedings, enforcement, occupation and current management have not been verified.
Questions before relying on rental authority
The practical lesson is to separate an application from an operative order, and corporate authority from physical control. Ask a Kenyan advocate to identify the relevant orders, their scope and any later changes. Ask what dated documents support the proposed signatory's authority and the managing agent's appointment. Where rent instructions conflict, seek advice before treating either instruction as conclusive.
Keep the evidence in separate categories: what a party requested, what the court decided, and what was subsequently implemented. A request to restore an earlier arrangement does not show that the arrangement was defined, legally restored or put back into practice.
For evidence-led follow-up, review how ArdhiScore works and confirm the scope available for your circumstances. Available court, gazette and field evidence can support monitoring and professional diligence; it cannot certify title or guarantee complete coverage or prevention of loss. Do not assume access to the Lands register or private bank records. This historical case note is not legal advice or confirmation of anyone's current control.