Case Law[2026] KEHC 1542Kenya
Nes Poly Pack Limited v Equity Bank [K] Limited (Miscellaneous Application E854 of 2023) [2026] KEHC 1542 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (13 February 2026) (Ruling)
High Court of Kenya
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
CORAM: F. MUGAMBI, J
MISC APPLN NO. E854 OF 2023
BETWEEN
NES POLY PACK LIMITED ………………………..……..
APPLICANT
VERSUS
EQUITY BANK [K] LIMITED …………….……………
RESPONDENT
RULING
Introduction and Background
1. This Ruling is in respect of the preliminary
objection dated 7th July 2025. The objection arises
in response to the Notice of Motion dated 19th June
2025 filed by the applicant, NES POLY PACK,
seeking injunctive reliefs against the respondent,
the Bank, restraining it from dealing with the
property known as KAJIADO/KAPUTIEI
NORTH/36096. The application is supported by
the affidavit of Samuel Gutu Maina who avers
MISC APP E854 OF 2023 RULING Page 1
that the Bank has advertised the property for sale
without following proper legal procedure and in
disregard of the consent order adopted by this
Court on 28th February 2024.
2. The Bank contends that the application is fatally
defective as it offends Rule 39(1) of the Court
Annexed Mediation Rules. Specifically, the Bank
argues that the application seeks to set aside or
vary an order arising from a Mediation Settlement
Agreement (MSA) without first seeking and
obtaining leave of the Court. On this basis, the
Bank urges the Court to strike out the application.
3. NES POLY PACK, in its submissions, argues that the
issue of the MSA is res judicata. However, upon
careful consideration of the record, including the
ruling of this Court delivered on 13th June 2025, it is
evident that the Court did not address the validity
or enforceability of the MSA. That ruling was
confined to the issue of counsel’s noncompliance
with Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure
Rules. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is
properly before this Court.
MISC APP E854 OF 2023 RULING Page 2
4. The terms of the MSA dated 31st January 2024
appear to me to be clear and unequivocal:
i. The Debt (the Principal and Interest) be
cleared by the Plaintiff on or before 31st
May,2024;
ii. The Plaintiff will continue to pay
Kshs.2.3Million to the bank;
iii. In default of settlement of the debt by or
before 31st May 2024.the bank will
independently proceed to recover the debt
without further reference to the Plaintiff;
iv. The Plaintiff agrees not to seek any interim
relief; and
v. Each party to bear its own costs.
5. This agreement was adopted as a judgment of the
Court on 12th February 2024, thereby acquiring the
force of a decree, and rendering the matter as
settled.
6. That said, Order 39 Rule 1 of The Civil
Procedure (Court-Annexed Mediation) Rules
provides that:
“(1) No application for setting
aside of an order or decree
MISC APP E854 OF 2023 RULING Page 3
arising from a mediation
settlement agreement shall
be filed except with the leave
of court.
(2) An application for leave
under subrule (1) shall be
supported by an affidavit
detailing the grounds upon
which the applicant intends
to rely in setting aside the
order or decree.”
7. The language of the Rule is peremptory. Leave of
Court is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Without such
leave, any application purporting to set aside or
vary a decree arising from a mediation settlement
agreement is incompetent ab initio. NES POLY
PACK’s application of 19th June 2025, by seeking to
restrain the Bank from exercising its contractual
and court-sanctioned right of recovery, is in
substance an attempt to reopen, review, or
disregard the MSA, and particularly order No 3, yet,
no leave of Court was sought or obtained. The
application therefore offends Rule 39(1) and is
fatally defective.
MISC APP E854 OF 2023 RULING Page 4
Disposition
8. For the foregoing reasons, I find the Preliminary
Objection meritorious. The Notice of Motion dated
19th June 2025 is hereby struck out for being
incompetent. Costs shall follow the event. The
respondent, the Bank, is awarded the costs of the
application.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
Delivered in presence of:
Mr Mbaji for the defendants
Ms Obiria HB for Mr Muhatia for the applicants
Court Assistant: Lillian
MISC APP E854 OF 2023 RULING Page 5
Similar Cases
National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Verus Praedium Realtors Ltd & 3 others (Civil Application E207 of 2025) [2026] KECA 234 (KLR) (13 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KECA 234Court of Appeal of Kenya74% similar
Miheso v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited & 2 others (Constitutional Petition E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 1025 (KLR) (5 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1025High Court of Kenya72% similar
Mwasaha (Suing as The Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Silas Chilango Jambo - Deceased) & another v Suguna Foods Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 373 (KLR) (13 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEELRC 373Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya69% similar
CJ Securities v SS Sehmi General Building & Civil Contractors Limited (Civil Case 611 of 2010) [2026] KEHC 1497 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1497High Court of Kenya68% similar
Cape Suppliers Limited & 5 others v Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited (Civil Case E034 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 1498 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (12 February 2026) (Ruling)
[2026] KEHC 1498High Court of Kenya68% similar