[2005] KEHC 2590 (KLR)
The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondents neither filed a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition. The applicants established that the AGM was called without compliance with the Tea (Elections) Regulations. However, the restraining order sought was only to last until the hearing and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2590 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Atanasi Nyangau Nyamari; Plaintiff: Zacharia Anyona; Plaintiff: Zephania Ayiecha Ongoto; Plaintiff: Josia Kebati; Plaintiff: Peter Machuka; Plaintiff: Daniel N. Otieno; Plaintiff: Jared Kennedy Ombeta; Defendant: Kenya Tea Development Agency; Defendant: Ogembo Tea Factory Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 50 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed, but orders granted have no continuing effect beyond the date of the ruling.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Compliance With Regulations, Annual General Meetings
- 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
Atanasi Nyangau Nyamari
Plaintiff
Zacharia Anyona
Plaintiff
Zephania Ayiecha Ongoto
Plaintiff
Josia Kebati
Plaintiff
Peter Machuka
Plaintiff
Daniel N. Otieno
Plaintiff
Jared Kennedy Ombeta
Plaintiff
Kenya Tea Development Agency
Defendant
Ogembo Tea Factory Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants should be restrained from holding the Annual General Meeting scheduled for 12th May 2005 until the application is heard and determined.
- 2 Whether the defendants complied with the Tea (Elections) Regulations in calling the AGM.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was unopposed as the respondents neither filed a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition. The applicants established that the AGM was called without compliance with the Tea (Elections) Regulations. However, the restraining order sought was only to last until the hearing and determination of the application, which was concluded by this ruling. Therefore, while the application was allowed, the effect of the order lapsed immediately upon delivery of the ruling, as no further relief was sought to extend the order until the hearing of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed, but orders granted have no continuing effect beyond the date of the ruling.
Orders
- The application for restraining orders is allowed as prayed, but the orders lapse upon delivery of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CIVIL CASE NO.50 OF 2005
1. ATANASI NYANGAU NYAMARI ) 2. ZACHARIA ANYONA ) 3. ZEPHANIA AYIECHA ONGOTO ) 4. JOSIA KEBATI ) …..…………………….. PLAINTIFFS 5. PETER MACHUKA ) 6. DANIEL N. OTIENO ) 7. JARED KENNEDY OMBETA )
VERSUS
1. KENYA TEA DEV AGENCY ) 2. OGEMO TEA FACTORY CO. LTD ) ………………………. DEFENDANTS
RULING
The applicants application is for an order restraining the Defendants/Respondents from holding an Annual General Meeting of the 1st Defendant/Respondent scheduled for 12th May 2005 until this application is heard and disposed of.
The Respondent were served but did not file replying affidavit.
In his affidavit the applicant states that the respondent have not complied with Tea (Elections) Regulations in calling the scheduled A.G.M. and as such if it takes place it will only be for adoption of Agenda for election. The holding of the A.G.M. is premature and unproper.
As I have stated the application is not opposed. There is no affidavit or grounds of opposition filed. In the circumstances I allow the application as prayed.
However there is another issue which arises from the amended Chamber Summons. In prayer (b) it prays for restraining orders “until this application is heard and disposed of.” The court has heard this application today.
This ruling disposes of the application. The allowing of the application is therefore of no much consequence as the orders granted have no life. What prayers is now remaining to be heard is the main suit. The amended application did not pray that orders sought in this application remain in force until the suit is heard. In short the granting of the prayers in the application have no effect in what might happen tomorrow or any other day after today.
Dated 11th May 2005.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
Mr. Soire for Applicant.
N/A for Respondent.
cc. Mobisa