[2014] KEELC 361 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, or that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELC 361 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ali Awadhi Ali; Plaintiff: Salim Awadhi Ali; Plaintiff: Kombo Awadhi Ali; Defendant: Shomari Mwianyi Shomari; Defendant: Lilian Owimbo; Defendant: Siddiha Property Ltd.; Defendant: Chief Lands Registrar; Defendant: Registrar of Lands, Mombasa; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Kako Investment Ltd.; Defendant: Joseph Awimbo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 142 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction declined; status quo to be maintained
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Land Disputes
- 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
Ali Awadhi Ali
Plaintiff
Salim Awadhi Ali
Plaintiff
Kombo Awadhi Ali
Plaintiff
Shomari Mwianyi Shomari
Defendant
Lilian Owimbo
Defendant
Siddiha Property Ltd.
Defendant
Chief Lands Registrar
Defendant
Registrar of Lands, Mombasa
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Kako Investment Ltd.
Defendant
Joseph Awimbo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have met the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the hearing of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown. Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, or that the balance of convenience favoured them. Consequently, the application for injunction was declined. However, the court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit to preserve the subject matter.
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction declined; status quo to be maintained
Orders
- The application for interlocutory injunction is declined.
- The suit shall be fixed for hearing on merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
COPY
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 142 OF 2013
1. ALI AWADHI ALI
2. SALIM AWADHI ALI
3. KOMBO AWADHI ALI ............................................................PLAINTIFFS
-VERSUS-
1. SHOMARI MWIANYI SHOMARI
2. LILIAN OWIMBO
3. SIDDIHA PROPERTY LTD.
4. CHEIF LANDS REGISTRAR
5. REGISTRAR OF LANDS, MOMBASA
6. ATTORNEY GENERAL
7. KAKO INVESTMENT LTD.
8. JOSEPH AWIMBO ............................................................. DEFENDANTS
RULING
I have had the opportunity to peruse the notice of motion dated 8th July, 2013. The supporting affidavit by Ali Awadh and all annextures attached.
I have also had the opportunity to peruse the submissions as read herein by the respondents.
I find that the requirements of Giella and Cassman Brown are not met. decline to grant the injunction. I order that this suit be fixed for hearing on merits.
I however order that in the meantime status quo be maintained until the suit is heard.
Dated and delivered in open Court at Mombasa this 5th day of June, 2014
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE
5. 6.2014
In the presence of:
Mr. Waithera for the 1st defendant
Ms. Lutta Advocate for the Attorney General