A borrower may have repaid a substantial amount without having cured the default that exposes charged land to sale. The payment history needs to be read against the agreement, the outstanding obligations and the enforcement notices.
In Mithika v Equity Bank Limited [2026] KEHC 2739 (KLR), the High Court refused an interim injunction over several charged parcels. The ruling did not establish that an auction had already occurred, but it left the bank able to proceed if default remained.
The High Court at Meru delivered the ruling on 4 March 2026, in Civil Suit E016 of 2025, resolving the application dated 4 August 2025.
The borrower disputed the demand
The applicant had used several properties as security for two facilities. She said she had made substantial repayments, disputed the amount demanded and wanted the accounts reconciled.
She also referred to a further payment after receiving a statutory notice and sought time or restructuring to meet her obligations.
The bank maintained that default continued and that it had served the necessary notices. It relied on the facility documents and account statements.
The parties' positions are set out in paragraphs 1-12. The bank's asserted balances and the borrower's account should not be collapsed into an independently verified current debt figure.
Admitted arrears mattered to the injunction application
Paragraphs 36-38 examined the borrower's own acknowledgment of default. The court found that the dispute about reconciliation did not establish the prima facie case required on the material presented.
It also declined to rewrite the parties' agreement to fit the applicant's preferred repayment arrangement.
In paragraph 46, the court explained that, under this contract, falling into arrears made the entire balance due. That is a case-specific contractual conclusion, not a rule that every missed payment under every loan has identical consequences.
For a property owner, the practical question is whether payments have satisfied the obligation necessary to cure the default. The total already paid does not answer that question on its own.
Notice objections needed a proper basis
Paragraph 39 addressed the attempted non-service argument. The court observed that the suit and application were not founded on non-service and found that the exhibited notices complied with the Land Act provisions it examined.
This does not remove a lender's statutory obligations or mean that a borrower can never challenge defective notice. It reports why this applicant's argument did not succeed.
An advocate should examine the actual instruments, service evidence and relevant deadlines. A general complaint about the amount demanded should not be assumed to suspend enforcement while those questions are investigated.
Personal importance did not secure interim relief
The applicant relied on the importance of the properties to her circumstances. The court nevertheless found that the second injunction requirement was not met and that the balance of convenience favoured the bank.
The ruling's reasoning treated the assets as security voluntarily exposed to sale upon default. That does not justify disregarding statutory protections or lawful enforcement procedures.
The final directions were conditional on continuing default
Paragraphs 48-50 dismissed the application with costs. The bank was at liberty to exercise its statutory power of sale if payment default remained.
The court said fresh statutory notices were unnecessary on the history before it, while requiring compliance with the law on advertisement.
This was not a blanket exemption from notices in other transactions. Nor was it proof that the debt remained unpaid after the ruling, that the property was advertised correctly or that a sale was completed.
Enquiries before relying on charged land
Connect the property to the relevant charge and facility documents. Obtain an appropriately authorised account of the obligations, any agreed restructuring and the requirements for release or discharge.
Keep payments, notices and court orders in their dated sequence. If a transaction depends on stopping or completing an enforcement process, obtain current confirmation rather than relying on an old payment receipt or application.
ArdhiScore supports the enquiry, not repayment or legal deadlines
ArdhiScore can help organise available parcel references, dated evidence, source citations and unresolved charge-related questions. Screening does not reconcile a private loan account, arrange discharge or guarantee prevention of an auction.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits. The ruling and scoped later-history searches were read on 11 September 2026. No later sale result or changing order was verified; current lender, registry and legal enquiries remain necessary.