this Appeal vide the Memorandum of Appeal filed on 25th February 2022 on grounds that “The learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law by granting the 1st Respondent a stay of execution of attachment and repossession of motor vehicle registration number KCZ 622Y pending the determination of the suit yet there was no decree in the suit capable of being stayed”.
It was discovered that Kengethe and Momentum Credit fraudulently took physical possession of the motor vehicle after receiving communication and evidence that Rono is the legal owner of the motor vehicle which is currently registered in the names of Kangehe and Momentum. It was further noted that Kangethe unlawfully charged the motor vehicle using it as security for his personal use with Momentum. It was also discovered that Kangethe confirmed that he had, without the consent of Ronoh, charged the motor vehicle to Momentum Credit.
The judge noted, “I therefore find that allowing the Appellant to repossess the vehicle from the 1st Respondent before the suit is determined would cause the 1st Respondent irreparable harm and injury”.