[2009] KEHC 2635 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 2635 (KLR)

The court found that the application for injunctive relief was filed in the wrong division, as the intended appeal was already before the High Court Civil Appeals Division. The proper course was to transfer the application to that division for hearing and disposal. The preliminary objection regarding the Plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 2635 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Andrew Webuyele Biketi; Defendant: Chinese Centre for the Promotion of Investment & Trade in Kenya Limited; Defendant: Warleen Traders (K) Limited; Defendant: George N. Kimani
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Children Miscellaneous Application 81 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Application transferred to the High Court Civil Appeals Division; interim orders extended.
Judges
CJ Kendagor
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Transfer of Proceedings, Representation of Parties, Landlord Tenant Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Transfer of Proceedings Representation of Parties Landlord Tenant Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Webuyele Biketi

Plaintiff

Chinese Centre for the Promotion of Investment & Trade in Kenya Limited

Defendant

Warleen Traders (K) Limited

Defendant

George N. Kimani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application for injunction was properly before the Commercial Division or should have been filed in the Civil Appeals Division.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's advocate was conflicted and thus barred from representing the Plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether temporary injunctive relief should be maintained pending transfer of the file.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for injunctive relief was filed in the wrong division, as the intended appeal was already before the High Court Civil Appeals Division. The proper course was to transfer the application to that division for hearing and disposal. The preliminary objection regarding the Plaintiff's advocate's representation was dismissed on technical grounds, as it should have been raised by substantive application rather than as a preliminary objection. The court extended the interim orders previously granted, maintaining the status quo until the Civil Appeals Division could give further directions. The court emphasized the importance of filing applications in the...

Court Disposition

Application transferred to the High Court Civil Appeals Division; interim orders extended.

Orders

  • This file be placed before the High Court Civil Appeals Division for directions.
  • The temporary orders granted on 12th February, 2009 are extended until further orders of that court.