RULING
The applicant brought an action against the respondents seeking to be granted an order of a mandatory injunction to stop the intended sale of a property known as NAIROBI/BLOCK 99/75 and to restrain them or their agents from selling, and or transferring the suit property to anyone.
It was the applicant’s case that the suit property was her matrimonial home with the 1st respondent; that the 1st respondent fraudulently and without her knowledge or consent charged the property to the 2nd respondent in order to obtain a loan; that after the 1st respondent defaulted in the repayment, the 2nd respondent threatened, in exercise of its statutory power to sell the suit property; that she stood to lose her proprietory interest in the suit property if the sale was to proceed.
In opposing the application, the 1st respondent asserted that he was the registered owner of the suit property. And to demonstrate this, he annexed to to his replying affidavit a copy of the title deed. He explained that…