[2017] KEHC 8530 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8530 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable loss that could not be compensated by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8530 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Carolyne Mutambi Lusala; Respondent: Napoleon Wakukha Murende; Respondent: Molyn Credit Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 41 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Charge of Land, Auction Sales, Delay in Filing Appeal, Equitable Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Banking and Finance Injunctions Stay of Execution Charge of Land Auction Sales Delay in Filing Appeal +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyne Mutambi Lusala

Applicant

Napoleon Wakukha Murende

Respondent

Molyn Credit Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Injunction and Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the subordinate court's orders.
  3. 3 Whether delay and laches disentitle the applicant to equitable relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, irreparable loss that could not be compensated by damages, or that the balance of convenience favored her. The court also found the applicant guilty of laches and inordinate delay in prosecuting the appeal and in seeking relief, and noted that neither the applicant nor the 1st respondent had made any effort to repay the loan or finalize the subordinate court proceedings. The court concluded that the application lacked merit and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the 2nd respondent.