[2018] KEHC 5041 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 5041 (KLR)

The court found that the materials supplied by the plaintiff had already been installed, and removal would amount to demolishing completed fittings, some of which included third-party materials. The balance of convenience did not favor granting such an order. Regarding the deposit of USD 235,000, the court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 5041 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ateco Tank Engineering Company; Defendant: Prashant Projects Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
Civil Case 117 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
RB Ngetich
Legal Topics
Contractual Obligations, Bank Guarantees, Specific Performance, Interlocutory Injunctions
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Contractual Obligations Bank Guarantees Specific Performance Interlocutory Injunctions

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ateco Tank Engineering Company

Plaintiff

Prashant Projects Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be compelled to deposit USD 235,000 pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be compelled to remove subject materials from the construction site pending determination of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the prerequisites for grant of interlocutory orders have been established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the materials supplied by the plaintiff had already been installed, and removal would amount to demolishing completed fittings, some of which included third-party materials. The balance of convenience did not favor granting such an order. Regarding the deposit of USD 235,000, the court held that the claim was quantifiable and there was no evidence that the defendants would be unable to satisfy a decree if the plaintiff succeeded. The prerequisites for granting the interlocutory orders sought were not met. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.