A borrower may dispute a lender's calculation without obtaining an order stopping enforcement against charged land. The existence of an accounting argument, the effect of a settlement and the availability of interim protection are separate questions.
In Equip Agencies Ltd & 4 others v I&M Bank Ltd & another [2026] KECA 1526 (KLR), the Court of Appeal considered those distinctions. Its ruling of 31 July 2026 refused an injunction sought over several charged properties pending an appeal.
The parties disagreed about more than the arithmetic
The applicants maintained that substantial repayments had been made and challenged the lender's treatment of the facilities and a settlement deed. The bank relied on the settlement, continued indebtedness and a history of unsuccessful applications.
The ruling, paragraphs 1-11, records these competing accounts. Statements about unlawful consolidation, pressure to sign the deed and particular outstanding balances should not be presented as final judicial findings from this interim decision.
The properties included a Mainland North reference and Nairobi properties identified in the related record. The application did not concern every asset associated with the business or its directors.
Earlier proceedings could not be left out of the story
A related ruling of 28 March 2025, Equip Agencies Limited v I&M Bank Limited [2025] KECA 585 (KLR), had already refused interim relief arising from a different lower-court order.
At paragraphs 10-11, that earlier bench treated the matter as already determined, found the proposed appeal unarguable and relied on the admitted indebtedness and settlement. It also considered compensation adequate if the intended appeal succeeded. The application was dismissed with costs.
The motion decided in July 2026 was dated 17 June 2022 and arose from the separate refusal of an injunction on 3 June 2022. It was not an appeal setting aside the March 2025 ruling. Collapsing all those proceedings into "the appeal" would conceal important differences.
The later bench found an arguable point, but not enough for relief
At paragraph 16 of the July 2026 ruling, the court regarded the contested amount as an arguable issue deserving consideration. It did not finally decide the correct balance or invalidate the settlement.
The applicants still had to satisfy the second requirement for interim protection: that a successful appeal would be rendered ineffective without the requested order.
At paragraph 18, the court considered the known monetary value of the properties and the bank's ability to pay damages. It also considered the argument that continuing delay could allow the debt to exceed the value of the security. It was not persuaded that refusing the injunction would make a successful appeal ineffective.
Paragraph 19 declined the motion with costs to the respondents. There was no new injunction, final accounting determination or finding that an auction had actually been completed.
Build one timeline without merging different orders
For charged land, ask which facility, security and court application a document concerns. Reconcile the settlement with subsequent orders rather than assuming that a fresh application suspended an earlier obligation.
The reported decisions contain differing parcel and case-year references. Those should be checked against the actual instruments and court files, not silently normalised in a summary. No current registration, final appeal outcome or subsequent changing order is confirmed here.
The existence of a debt and a dispute about its amount can coexist. Whether either supports a particular legal remedy needs professional assessment of the evidence and the precise procedural setting.
ArdhiScore can help organise parcel identifiers, dated court references and questions about the evidence available. It does not audit bank interest, renegotiate a settlement or guarantee that enforcement will be restrained.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. Use the available record alongside official enquiries and legal advice; nothing here establishes that screening would have prevented the financing dispute. This article is not legal advice.