[2002] KEHC 913 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as established in Giella v. Cassman Brown. Specifically, the applicant's locus standi was unclear, and the justiciability of the dispute was not established. There was no evidence that the applicant would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 913 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Abdalla M. Kamwana; Defendant: Prof. Abdul Gafur Busaify & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1722 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RCN Kuloba
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Locus Standi, Irreparable Harm
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdalla M. Kamwana
Plaintiff
Prof. Abdul Gafur Busaify & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from holding workshops in his absence.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling reinstatement as regional co-ordinator.
- 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi and whether the dispute is justiciable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as established in Giella v. Cassman Brown. Specifically, the applicant's locus standi was unclear, and the justiciability of the dispute was not established. There was no evidence that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, as granting the injunction would halt the programme and potentially cause greater harm if the suit ultimately failed. Consequently, the application for both the prohibitory and mandatory injunctions was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for temporary and mandatory injunctions is dismissed.
- No order as to costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO.1722 OF 2002
ABDALLA M. KAMWANA …………………………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PROF. ABDUL GAFUR BUSAIFY & OTHERS…… DEFENDANTS
RULING
This is an application for two temporary injunctions – one to restrain the respondents from holding workshops for Kenya Domestic Observation Programme for on-coming general elections in the absence of the applicant; and the other, a mandatory one, to compel the respondents to reinstate the applicant as the regional co-ordinator for Eastern Province.
It is said for the applicant that the respondents unilaterally dismissed the application on August 13, 2002 without justifiable ;cause, and excluded him from the observation programme the applicant had been appointed co-ordinator ;officer; and his exclusion from the intended election observation programme is idiscriminatory malicious and bad faith. The applicant says he had psychologically prepared himself for the programme and his exclusion have tremendously supporting affidavit of the plaintiff elaborated on these grounds.
Having regard for the supporting affidavit and the opposing affidavits of the respondent, it is clear that theGiella v. Cassman Brownrequirements are not met in this case. In particular, the Locus standi of the applicant is not clear; the justifiability of the bone oof contention is not shown to be litigiable. There is no showing on the material before me, that if the injunction is not granted the plaintiff (applicant) will suffer irreparable damage if he eventually succeeds at the hearing of the suit.
The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents, because if the injunction is granted and the programme in issue is put to a halt by injunction, but the suit fails, the damage would cause injury for which no money compensation will do.
For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
No order as to costs of this application.
Orders accordingly.
R. KULOBA
JUDGE
9/12/2002