Latest News

Absa Blocked from Selling Nairobi Property as Borrower Secures Fresh Appeal Stay

Judgement-kawaken-holdings-ltd

Justice Peter Mulwa has stopped Absa from selling Alex Owino Owour’s Nairobi property but ordered him to secure the outstanding debt within 30 days.

A Nairobi court has stopped Absa Bank Kenya PLC from selling a disputed property pending an appeal.

Justice Peter Mulwa issued the order after Alex Owino Owour challenged an earlier judgement favouring Absa.

The property, L.R. Nairobi/Block 134/1297, secured banking facilities advanced several years earlier.

But the judge attached a strict financial condition to the temporary protection.

Owour must deposit the outstanding decretal amount into a joint interest-earning account.

The money must be deposited within 30 days from September 1, 2026.

Failure to comply will automatically terminate the stay without another court hearing.

The ruling therefore protects the property while preserving Absa’s financial recovery rights.

The Debt Behind It

The dispute traces back to banking facilities advanced to Starex Freighters Ltd.

Owour was the company’s director when the facilities were secured against his property.

A charge dated November 17, 2017, covered an overdraft facility worth KSh2 million.

It also secured an invoice-discounting facility valued at KSh5 million.

The earlier proceedings eventually produced competing positions about the outstanding debt.

Owour maintained that he had substantially addressed the financial obligation owed to Absa.

The bank, however, maintained that money remained outstanding and continued attracting interest.

That disagreement eventually became central to the battle over the property.

In October 2023, Owour approached the Chief Magistrate’s Court seeking protection from Absa’s recovery efforts.

He wanted the bank restrained from advertising, selling or interfering with his property.

The trial court granted his application on April 5, 2024, prompting Absa’s appeal.

Justice Mulwa later overturned that decision in a judgement delivered April 10, 2025.

The High Court held that Owour had not established a sufficient basis for an injunction.

The court also found that partial repayment did not extinguish Absa’s statutory recovery rights.

It consequently allowed Absa to exercise its statutory power of sale lawfully.

That decision dramatically changed the pressure surrounding Owour’s Nairobi property.

Appeal Changes Course

Owour subsequently moved quickly to protect the property while pursuing another appeal.

He lodged a Notice of Appeal on April 16, 2025, just six days after judgement.

One week later, he filed the application seeking a stay of execution.

He argued that selling the property would effectively destroy his intended appeal.

The court agreed that this particular concern carried considerable legal weight.

Justice Mulwa noted that the appeal challenged the judgement permitting realisation of Absa’s security.

A sale before the appeal would therefore change the litigation’s subject matter.

The judge said such a development could potentially render the appeal “nugatory”.

That finding became the decisive difference between the earlier injunction battle and the current stay application.

The court nevertheless rejected the argument that every threatened property sale constitutes substantial loss.

Instead, it focused specifically on the consequences of selling this property prematurely.

The judge concluded that preserving the property served the interests of justice.

However, that protection could not come at Absa’s expense indefinitely.

The bank had told the court that Owour remained in default since 2023.

Absa said the outstanding loan stood at KSh3,280,484.05 as of May 6, 2025.

It further warned that interest continued accumulating against the outstanding balance.

The bank feared the growing debt could eventually exceed the property’s market value.

It therefore asked the court to demand financial security before granting any stay.

30-Day Deadline

Justice Mulwa ultimately fashioned a compromise between competing rights rather than granting unconditional protection.

The judge said a successful litigant remains entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgement.

At the same time, an appeal should remain meaningful when its subject matter faces imminent disposal.

The court therefore ordered a stay covering the judgement and the property’s potential sale.

But Owour must first secure the outstanding decretal amount after recognised payments.

That amount must enter a joint interest-earning account operated by both advocates.

The arrangement ensures that Absa’s financial interests remain protected during the appeal.

Owour had already demonstrated some commitment by paying KSh1.5 million towards the debt.

The judge regarded that payment and security offer as evidence of good faith.

Still, the court refused to allow the debt to accumulate without safeguards.

“An unconditional stay would expose the Respondent to further accumulation of the debt,” Justice Mulwa ruled.

He consequently made compliance with the deposit order a condition of continued protection.

The 30-day deadline creates an important pressure point for Owour.

If he fails to deposit the required amount, the stay automatically lapses.

Absa would then no longer remain restrained by this particular court order.

The costs of the application will also await the eventual outcome of the appeal.

For Owour, the ruling buys valuable time but offers no permanent escape from liability.

For Absa, it preserves the bank’s claim while temporarily blocking immediate realisation.

The wider significance lies in that delicate balance between recovery and appellate justice.

READ ALSO: Court Strikes Out Nyali Late Night Chemist’s KSh4.5M Mercedes Appeal Against ABSA

The court has effectively placed the property in judicial limbo, subject to strict financial safeguards.

The next crucial question will therefore concern compliance with the 30-day deposit requirement.

If Owour complies, the property remains protected while the appeal proceeds.

If he does not, the protection disappears automatically, reviving Absa’s recovery options.

For now, however, the disputed Nairobi property remains shielded from an immediate sale.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Most Popular

To Top
error: Content is protected !!