[2006] KEHC 1817 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 1817 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had no legal or equitable interest in the suit premises, as he failed to show any agreement for sale or payment of deposit that would confer a purchaser's interest. The applicant did not establish how his employment contract was tied to the provision of housing to justify an injunction against eviction. Regarding retirement, the court accepted the respondent's evidence that retirement had already been effected and the applicant was drawing a pension. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, and damages would be an adequate remedy. Consequently, the court declined to grant the interim and mandatory injunctions...

Citation
[2006] KEHC 1817 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Arthur K. Apungu; Defendant: Telkon Kenya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 July 2006
Case Number
Civil Case 117 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Retirement Age Dispute, Employee Housing Rights, Interlocutory Injunctions
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Land and Property Termination of Employment Retirement Age Dispute Employee Housing Rights Interlocutory Injunctions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arthur K. Apungu

Plaintiff

Telkon Kenya

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining eviction from L.R No. 1/188 Kilimani Nairobi pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a legal or equitable interest in the suit premises to warrant injunctive relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of salary and benefits pending the hearing of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had no legal or equitable interest in the suit premises, as he failed to show any agreement for sale or payment of deposit that would confer a purchaser's interest. The applicant did not establish how his employment contract was tied to the provision of housing to justify an injunction against eviction. Regarding retirement, the court accepted the respondent's evidence that retirement had already been effected and the applicant was drawing a pension. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, and damages would be an adequate remedy. Consequently, the court declined to grant the interim and mandatory injunctions...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for interim and mandatory injunctions is refused and dismissed with costs.