[2018] KEHC 2432 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2432 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent would be unable to refund any monies deducted should the appeal succeed. The respondent, being a Teachers SACCO, was deemed financially capable of repaying the sums in question. The applicant failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2432 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Catherine Kutete Luseno; Respondent: Bungoma Teachers SACCO Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 9 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Stay of Execution Appeals Process

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

Parties

Catherine Kutete Luseno

Appellant

Bungoma Teachers SACCO Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from making further deductions from her salary pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent would be unable to refund any monies deducted should the appeal succeed. The respondent, being a Teachers SACCO, was deemed financially capable of repaying the sums in question. The applicant failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction and stay of execution was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.