[2018] KEHC 10116 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10116 (KLR)

The court held that once a suit has been stayed, as was done by the ruling of 5th February 2018, the plaintiff is not entitled to move the court for any relief, including an interlocutory injunction, unless and until the order of stay is vacated. The rationale is that a stay of proceedings arrests all further steps in the suit, and the court cannot entertain applications in a stayed matter. The court found the defendant's opposition decisive and dismissed the plaintiff's application on this ground alone. The court also noted, without making a conclusive finding, that the absence of summons to enter appearance could render the suit irregular, but did not base its decision on this issue as...

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10116 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Afvest Limited; Defendant: Micro Mobile Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Case Number
Civil Suit 353 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application After Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Loan Conversion Disputes, Shareholding Structure Injunctions, Arbitration Referral, Stay of Proceedings, Interim Injunctions, Debt to Equity Conversion
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Alternative Dispute Resolution Loan Conversion Disputes Shareholding Structure Injunctions Arbitration Referral Stay of Proceedings Interim Injunctions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afvest Limited

Plaintiff

Micro Mobile Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application After Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can seek an interlocutory injunction when the suit has been stayed pending arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was required to first seek vacation of the stay order before moving the court for interim relief.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of summons to enter appearance renders the suit irregular.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once a suit has been stayed, as was done by the ruling of 5th February 2018, the plaintiff is not entitled to move the court for any relief, including an interlocutory injunction, unless and until the order of stay is vacated. The rationale is that a stay of proceedings arrests all further steps in the suit, and the court cannot entertain applications in a stayed matter. The court found the defendant's opposition decisive and dismissed the plaintiff's application on this ground alone. The court also noted, without making a conclusive finding, that the absence of summons to enter appearance could render the suit irregular, but did not base its decision on this issue as...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The plaintiff's notice of motion dated 13th February 2018 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.