[2010] KECA 351 (KLR)

[2010] KECA 351 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that it would be acting in excess of jurisdiction if it were to record the first order in the consent letter, as it did not relate to the ex parte order made by the High Court or the orders sought in the application for stay. The ex parte order had already expired by effluxion of time. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KECA 351 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ajay Kothari; Applicant: Niceta Njura; Applicant: Garwall Abhimanyu; Applicant: Ephraim Murigo; Respondent: Marshalls (East Africa) Limited; Respondent: The Registrar of Companies; Respondent: Murimi Murage; Respondent: Chales Wachira Ngundo; Respondent: Kirtesh Premchand
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 9 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal; Consent Order Recording
Outcome
Application marked as settled by consent; no order as to costs.
Judges
AM Githinji, CA Otieno
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Consent Orders, Company Directorship Disputes, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Consent Orders Company Directorship Disputes Stay of Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Kothari

Applicant

Niceta Njura

Applicant

Garwall Abhimanyu

Applicant

Ephraim Murigo

Applicant

Marshalls (East Africa) Limited

Respondent

The Registrar of Companies

Respondent

Murimi Murage

Respondent

Chales Wachira Ngundo

Respondent

Kirtesh Premchand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal; Consent Order Recording

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should record the consent order as an order of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the consent order resolves issues relating to the management of Marshalls (East Africa) Limited.
  3. 3 Whether the ex parte injunction order had expired by effluxion of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it would be acting in excess of jurisdiction if it were to record the first order in the consent letter, as it did not relate to the ex parte order made by the High Court or the orders sought in the application for stay. The ex parte order had already expired by effluxion of time. The substantive issues regarding the management of Marshalls (East Africa) Limited should be resolved in the pending High Court suit (H.C.C.C. No. 743 of 2008). The court therefore declined to record the first order in the consent letter as an order of the Court of Appeal and instead confirmed and endorsed the order recorded by the Deputy Registrar on 23rd September, 2009, marking...

Court Disposition

Application marked as settled by consent; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is marked as settled with no order as to costs, as per the consent recorded by the Deputy Registrar on 23rd September, 2009.
  • The first order in the consent letter regarding the management of Marshalls (East Africa) Limited is not recorded as an order of this Court and is returned for filing in the High Court suit.