NAIROBI, Kenya – The Court of Appeal has dismissed East African Cables PLC’s attempt to halt Equity Bank from selling four of its Nairobi properties to recover a debt exceeding Sh2.2 billion, paving the way for the lender to proceed with the auction.
In a ruling delivered on May 23, 2025, a three-judge bench led by Justice Jamila Mohammed found that although East African Cables raised a potentially arguable appeal, it failed to prove that allowing the sale would render the appeal meaningless.
East African Cables had sought a court injunction to stop Equity Bank from advertising, selling, or otherwise dealing with the properties, arguing that the bank’s move was premature as the company was working towards settling the outstanding debt.
The dispute dates back to July 2023, when Equity Bank issued statutory demand notices to East African Cables for repayment of the Sh2.2 billion loan.
The company challenged the legality of the bank’s planned asset sale, filing an appeal after the High Court dismissed its injunction request in November 2024.
In court documents, East African Cables’ Managing Director Paul Muigai argued that if the bank was allowed to sell the properties, the appeal would be rendered useless, as the assets would be alienated before the matter was fully resolved.
However, Equity Bank opposed the injunction, emphasizing that the debt was acknowledged and that the company had been making partial repayments.
The lender argued that even if East African Cables succeeded on appeal, its only remedy would be monetary compensation—not stopping the sale.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the bank’s position, noting that the properties were legally charged as collateral and the company had not discharged those charges.
The judges highlighted that Kenyan law allows for damages in cases where a sale is improperly executed, meaning the appeal would not be rendered moot by the sale.
“Even if the statutory power of sale is exercised improperly, the only remedy available to the chargor is compensation in damages,” the Court stated, citing Section 99(4) of the Land Act.
While the judges acknowledged that there are complex legal questions around previous interim orders involving the properties, they ruled that these did not provide grounds to stop the sale.
The Court dismissed the company’s motion with costs and discharged earlier interim orders restraining the bank.
