[2014] KEHC 3851 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 3851 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order of 7th December 2007 expressly acknowledged the shop as family property to be operated by the defendant, but did not bar the plaintiff from accessing the premises. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff disrupted business or assaulted the defendant, and the alleged misconduct, if true, would be more appropriately addressed through criminal or civil proceedings rather than contempt. The defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction, and the high standard required for contempt was not met. Accordingly, the defendant's notice of motion for injunction and contempt was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 3851 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: A N M; Defendant: J W K
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Case Number
Civil Suit 180 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Contempt
Outcome
Defendant's notice of motion dated 8th May 2014 dismissed. Costs in the cause.
Judges
K Kimondo
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Contempt of Court, Consent Orders
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Matrimonial Property Disputes Injunctive Relief Contempt of Court Consent Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A N M

Plaintiff

J W K

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff breached the consent order of 7th December 2007 by interfering with the defendant's business at the shop.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the plaintiff from accessing or interfering with the business premises.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff should be cited and punished for contempt of court for alleged breach of the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order of 7th December 2007 expressly acknowledged the shop as family property to be operated by the defendant, but did not bar the plaintiff from accessing the premises. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff disrupted business or assaulted the defendant, and the alleged misconduct, if true, would be more appropriately addressed through criminal or civil proceedings rather than contempt. The defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction, and the high standard required for contempt was not met. Accordingly, the defendant's notice of motion for injunction and contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's notice of motion dated 8th May 2014 dismissed. Costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The defendant's application for injunction and contempt is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.