[2016] KEHC 4603 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 4603 (KLR)

The court found that the application for a permanent injunction was meritorious, particularly as the respondents, despite being served, failed to file any responses or contest the application. In the absence of opposition and upon consideration of the submissions by the applicants' advocate, the court was satisfied...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 4603 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Afrison Export Import Limited; Applicant: Huelands Limited; Respondent: Harit Sheth trading as Harit Sheth Advocates; Respondent: Highbury Consulting Services International Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 158 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Professional Undertakings, Injunctive Relief, Advocate Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Professional Undertakings Injunctive Relief Advocate Liability

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afrison Export Import Limited

Applicant

Huelands Limited

Applicant

Harit Sheth trading as Harit Sheth Advocates

Respondent

Highbury Consulting Services International Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction

  1. 1 Whether a permanent injunction should issue restraining the 1st respondent from effecting the professional undertaking made to the 2nd respondent on behalf of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for a permanent injunction was meritorious, particularly as the respondents, despite being served, failed to file any responses or contest the application. In the absence of opposition and upon consideration of the submissions by the applicants' advocate, the court was satisfied that the applicants had established sufficient grounds for the grant of the injunction sought. Consequently, the court granted prayer No. 4 of the Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2016, thereby restraining the 1st respondent from effecting the professional undertaking to the 2nd respondent on behalf of the applicants. Costs of the application were also awarded to the applicants.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A permanent injunction is issued restraining the 1st respondent from effecting the professional undertaking made to the 2nd respondent on behalf of the applicants.
  • The applicants are awarded costs of the application.