[1998] KEHC 247 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the property in dispute was in imminent danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by the respondent. The applicant's fears, as expressed in her affidavit, were not substantiated by any concrete evidence. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 247 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Agnes Wanjiku Mbugua; Defendant: James Mbugua Macharia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1489 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Married Womens Property, Affidavit Evidence
- 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
Agnes Wanjiku Mbugua
Plaintiff
James Mbugua Macharia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of or wasting the disputed property pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the principles for granting injunctions under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules have been satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the property in dispute was in imminent danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by the respondent. The applicant's fears, as expressed in her affidavit, were not substantiated by any concrete evidence. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the applicant to show, by affidavit or otherwise, that the property is at risk as required under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the absence of such evidence, the court could not grant the interlocutory injunction sought. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 1489 OF 1997
AGNES WANJIKU MBUGUA..............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MBUGUA MACHARIA.......................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application by way of Chamber Summons under Order 39 Rule 1(a) of the Civil procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil procedure act for an injunction to be issued restraining the respondent from disposing off or in any other manner whatsoever wasting and or alienating the movable and immovable property set out pending the determination of these proceedings.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant to which the respondent has sworn a replying affidavit. Both learned counsel have also made their submissions which I have on record.
For the applicant to succeed in obtainng the order sought, it has to be proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property in dipsute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.
In the instant application the applicant has stated in her affidavit paragraphs 5 and 6 thus:-
“5. The aforesaid properties are registered solely in the name fo the respondent and are exclusively in his possession.
6. That I verily believe that unless restrained by this Honourable court, the respondent will dispose, alienate or waste the aforesaid movable and immovable property with a view to defeating my claim herein.”
The applicant’s substantive suit is by way of Originating Summons grounded on Section 17 of the married Women’s Property Act, (1882). Directions are yet to be taken. It is true that marriage has not been denied. However, the principles of granting injunctions are applicable here like in all other cases seeking the same orders. In the instant case the guide is to be found in order 39 Rule 1(a) which has been cited by the applicant.
As “status quo” is not a rule per se, the applicant is duty bound to provide evidence as required by that provision. In one of the cited cases-H.C.C.C. No. 1246 of 1996 - Margaret Gitau -v- Joseph Gitau, Mbito J. observed that there was some evidence that the assets were likely to be disposed of. He then ordered that the status quo be maintained. In the instant case the applicant has not provided any evidence to that effect and her fears as contained in her affidavit fall short of that.
Accordingly the application must fail. The same is hereby dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of May, 1998
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE