NAIROBI, Kenya — A couple battling to retain their matrimonial home has suffered a setback after the Court of Appeal declined to stop their eviction from a house auctioned by Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) over a disputed mortgage facility worth approximately Sh13.8 million.
Oscar Sammy Imbuye and Aginela Kezia Waleghwa had sought interim orders to suspend their removal from a maisonette located in Trident Park Estate pending the hearing of their appeal.
The couple argued that the property’s sale was unlawful and that eviction from their family home would cause irreparable harm.
Dispute Over Mortgage and Auction
Court records indicate that the homeowners obtained mortgage facilities from KCB in 2013 and 2014, totaling about Sh13.8 million.
The bank later claimed the account had fallen into arrears and, after issuing statutory notices, proceeded to exercise its power of sale under the law.
The property was subsequently sold through a public auction on July 8, 2025, for Sh20.4 million.
The successful bidder, Celestine Jeruto Rono, was later registered as the property’s owner.
However, the couple challenged the transaction, maintaining that they had repaid more than Sh20 million and questioning the legality of the auction process.
They alleged that KCB failed to issue valid statutory notices, did not undertake a lawful valuation, and that a notice of sale had been served through WhatsApp. They also claimed the auction proceeded despite court orders preserving the status quo.
Appeal Found Arguable
After the High Court directed them to vacate the property, the couple moved to the appellate court seeking protection pending the determination of their intended appeal.
Their lawyers argued that the appeal raised significant legal questions, including whether earlier consent orders had been improperly vacated, whether contempt proceedings had been mishandled, and whether the eviction orders were justified while disputes over the sale remained unresolved.
The judges agreed that the intended appeal was arguable and raised issues deserving judicial consideration.
However, they ruled that the applicants had failed to satisfy the second legal requirement necessary for granting interim relief.
Damages Can Compensate Loss, Court Rules
The appellate court held that the couple had not demonstrated that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if eviction proceeded.
“While the sentimental attachment to a matrimonial home is recognized, the law requires proof that the property is unique or incapable of compensation in damages,” the judges stated.
The court noted that the house had already been transferred to a third-party purchaser and that any loss suffered by the applicants could be compensated through damages if they eventually succeed in their appeal.
The judges further emphasized that the law protects purchasers who acquire property through public auctions.
“The rights of the purchaser are protected under the Land Act,” the court observed.
According to the ruling, preserving the status quo in favour of the applicants would undermine statutory protections granted to bona fide purchasers.
Implications of the Decision
The ruling clears the way for enforcement of orders requiring the couple to vacate the property unless they obtain further relief from the courts as the appeal process continues.
