[2012] KEHC 4788 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the established principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of a confirmed grant, the extent of the estate, or the ascertained beneficiaries and their shares. Without this evidence, the court could...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4788 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Esnas Asiri Mung’edi; Defendant: Stephen Simon Asirikwa; Defendant: Roselyne Nangekhe; Defendant: Joseph Opicho Kawa; Defendant: Pridgeon Barasa Masake; Defendant: Aslan E. Lascar Brahim; Defendant: Isabel Martha Njambi; Defendant: Teresa Nakhungu Wati
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 59 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Probate and Administration, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Esnas Asiri Mung’edi
Plaintiff
Stephen Simon Asirikwa
Defendant
Roselyne Nangekhe
Defendant
Joseph Opicho Kawa
Defendant
Pridgeon Barasa Masake
Defendant
Aslan E. Lascar Brahim
Defendant
Isabel Martha Njambi
Defendant
Teresa Nakhungu Wati
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and damages if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the established principles for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the applicant did not provide evidence of a confirmed grant, the extent of the estate, or the ascertained beneficiaries and their shares. Without this evidence, the court could not determine whether the deceased had made provision for the defendants or whether the applicant had a prima facie case. Consequently, the court held that none of the conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction were met and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BUNGOMA
HCCC NO.59 OF 2008
ESNAS ASIRI MUNG’EDI...................................................................PLAINTIFF
VS
STEPHEN SIMON ASIRIKWA.................................................1ST DEFENDANT
ROSELYNE NANGEKHE...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
JOSEPH OPICHO KAWA.........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
PRIDGEON BARASA MASAKE...............................................4TH DEFENDANT
ASLAN E. LASCAR BRAHIM...................................................5TH DEFENDANT
ISABEL MARTHA NJAMBI......................................................6TH DEFENDANT
TERESA NAKHUNGU WATI.....................................................7TH DEFENDANT
RULING
In paragraph 2 of the affidavit sworn in support of the summons reference is made to a confirmed grant. Copy of this grant was not annexed to show the extend of the estate of the deceased, the ascertained beneficiaries and the respective shares. The court would not know at this stage whether the deceased had made any provision to the Defendants before he died.
The basis upon an interlocutory injunction is issued is whether the Appellant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success; whether he will otherwise suffer irreparable loss and damages; and whether, if the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience tilts in his favour (Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358). I do not find that the principles, or any of them have been satisfied. The application is dismissed with costs.
Ruling delivered in open court this 15th day of March, 2012.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE