[2018] KEHC 2611 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd interested party, Edmar Enterprises Ltd, was not entitled to have the ex-parte injunction orders set aside or varied at this stage because the orders had been extended by consent of the parties, including through the appearance of counsel who had acted for both the defendants and the 2nd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2611 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission; Defendant: Estama Investment Ltd; Defendant: Business Capital Access Ltd; Defendant: Diversity Distributors Ltd; Defendant: Medafrica Ltd; Defendant: Njage Makanga; Defendant: Dr. Nicholas Muraguri; Defendant: Ephantus Maina Thiga; Defendant: Benn Khadiagala; Defendant: Mamo Umuro; Defendant: Peter Gachenge; Defendant: Elkana Onguti; Defendant: Susan Otieno; Defendant: Dr. Ombacho Kepha Mogere; Defendant: Kariuki Ireri Njagi; Appellant: Kenya Good Land Investment; Applicant: Edmar Enterprises Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Appeal 1 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application by 2nd Interested Party (edmar Enterprises Ltd) Seeking Variation of Ex Parte Injunction Orders and Permission to Withdraw Funds
- Outcome
- Application by 2nd interested party disallowed; directions issued for service and hearing of main application.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Preservation Orders, Joinder of Parties, Service of Process
- 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
Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
Estama Investment Ltd
Defendant
Business Capital Access Ltd
Defendant
Diversity Distributors Ltd
Defendant
Medafrica Ltd
Defendant
Njage Makanga
Defendant
Dr. Nicholas Muraguri
Defendant
Ephantus Maina Thiga
Defendant
Benn Khadiagala
Defendant
Mamo Umuro
Defendant
Peter Gachenge
Defendant
Elkana Onguti
Defendant
Susan Otieno
Defendant
Dr. Ombacho Kepha Mogere
Defendant
Kariuki Ireri Njagi
Defendant
Kenya Good Land Investment
Appellant
Edmar Enterprises Ltd
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application by 2nd Interested Party (edmar Enterprises Ltd) Seeking Variation of Ex Parte Injunction Orders and Permission to Withdraw Funds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex-parte injunction orders affecting the 2nd interested party should be set aside or varied.
- 2 Whether the 2nd interested party should be permitted to withdraw funds from the preserved account.
- 3 Whether the 2nd interested party was properly served and represented in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd interested party, Edmar Enterprises Ltd, was not entitled to have the ex-parte injunction orders set aside or varied at this stage because the orders had been extended by consent of the parties, including through the appearance of counsel who had acted for both the defendants and the 2nd interested party. The court determined that there was evidence of service of pleadings on the 2nd interested party's advocates, and that the firm had appeared on its behalf in previous proceedings. The court further held that the main application for injunctive orders had not yet been heard interpartes, and therefore the 2nd interested party could not claim to have been...
Court Disposition
Application by 2nd interested party disallowed; directions issued for service and hearing of main application.
Orders
- The plaintiff to serve the 2nd interested party with all its pleadings.
- The 2nd interested party to file and serve its defence and response to the notice of motion dated 3rd January 2018 within 14 days from date of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
58 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ANTI-CORRUPTION AND ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1 OF 2018
ETHICS & ANTI CORRUPTION COMMISSION....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ESTAMA INVESTMENT LTD..........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
BUSINESS CAPITAL ACCESS LTD...............................................2ND DEFENDANT
DIVERSITY DISTRIBUTORS LTD................................................3RD DEFENDANT
MEDAFRICA LTD............................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
NJAGE MAKANGA.........................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
DR. NICHOLAS MURAGURI........................................................6TH DEFENDANT
EPHANTUS MAINA THIGA...........................................................7TH DEFENDANT
BENN KHADIAGALA.....................................................................8TH DEFENDANT
MAMO UMURO...............................................................................9TH DEFENDANT
PETER GACHENGE......................................................................10TH DEFENDANT
ELKANA ONGUTI.........................................................................11TH DEFENDANT
SUSAN OTIENO.............................................................................12TH DEFENDANT
DR. OMBACHO KEPHA MOGERE...........................................13TH DEFENDANT
KARIUKI IRERI NJAGI..............................................................14TH DEFENDANT
AND
KENYA GOOD LAND INVESTMENT..........................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
EDMAR ENTERPRISES LTD.......................................2ND INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1 The 2nd interested party who is the Applicant in the application dated 9th August 2018 is seeking the following orders:
(b) That the ex-parte injunction orders obtained by the plaintiff on the 16th day of January 2018 and thereafter extended by consent between the advocates of the plaintiff and M/s Waweru & Co. Advocates for the 1st to the 5th defendant/respondents be set aside or varied in as far as they affect and prejudice the 2nd interested party.
(c) That the 2nd interested party, EDMAR ENTERPRISES limited be permitted to withdraw a sum of Kshs 6,288,917/- deposited into account No. 0130295032062 Equity Bank of Kenya, Gate House Branch in Nakuru and any other money that procedurally and lawfully may be paid or deposited into that account presently and in the future.
(d) That the plaintiff/respondent be ordered to serve the summons and all the pleadings regarding this matter to the 2nd interested party.
(e) That the costs and incidental to this application be provided for in favour of the 2nd interested party.
2 The application is supported by the grounds on its face and an affidavit by one Edward Njogorio Muchiri one of the directors of the 2nd interested party company.
3 The application has been opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent which has filed a replying affidavit through Paul Mugwe a forensic investigator with the Plaintiff/Respondent.
4 Both counsel made oral submissions in favour of and against the application. The 2nd interested party/application has indirectly accused the court of injustices he believes have been done to him and I believe it’s the duty of this court to set the record straight.
5 There is an initial ACEC Misc application no 27 of 2017 which was filed against the current 1st, 2nd, and 5th defendants and the 1st and 2nd interested parties. It was filed under section 56 of the ACECA seeking preservation orders in respect to funds in the bank accounts mentioned herein. This was done when the EACC was investigating this matter.
6 Upon completion of the investigations the EACC filed this suit ACEC No 1 of 2018 for recovery of some funds. In the Misc. Application the current 2nd interested party was represented by the firm of Waweru Gatonye. When the current suit was filed the Misc Application No. 27 of 2017 was closed as it had served its purpose and the two files could not run simultaneously.
7 The Plaintiff filed the plaint herein on 3rd January 2018 together with a notice of motion of even date. On 16th January 2018 this court granted interim orders in terms of prayer no 2 of the Notice of Motion which was to the effect that:
Pending interpartes hearing and determination of the notice of motion the Defendant/Respondents and all others named were restrained from dealing with money in the following accounts.
(i) A/C No 0150270856370 held at Equity bank in the name of the 2nd Defendant.
(ii) A/C No 0150371108352 held at Equity bank in the name of the 2nd defendant.
(iii) A/C Nos. 1202807267 and 1634228664 held at Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd in the name of the 2nd defendant.
(iv) A/C No 0130295032062 in the name of Edmar Enterprises Ltd held at Equity Bank.
(v) A/C No 1470263984328 in the name of Kenya Goodland Investments held in Equity Bank.
8 The 2nd interested party was enjoined as a party to the proceedings by an order of this court dated 31st January 2018. There is evidence that M/s Waweru Gatonye’s office were served with the pleadings related to these proceedings on behalf of the 2nd interested party. All along a Mr Muchiri from Waweru Gatonye’s firm appeared for the 1st-5th defendants and the 2nd interested party, in this matter and the court was under the belief that the firm had instructions to act for the 2nd interested party in this matter.
9 I have however perused the entire record and there is no Notice of Appointment of Advocates filed by Waweru Gatonye advocates in respect to the 2nd interested party. The said firm only filed a Memorandum of Appearance in respect of the 1st-5th defendants on 22nd January 2018.
10 On 13th March and 30th May 2018 Mr Muchiri from Waweru Gatonye’s firm continued to appear for the 2nd interested party when directions were taken in respect of ongoing negotiations and interim orders were extended.
11 The negotiations have gone on and it is only on 9th August 2018 when the 2nd interested party filed the present application raising various claims. One thing is clear that this court has not heard the plaintiff’s notice of motion application dated 3rd January 2018 for injunctive orders. The 2nd interested party cannot therefore claim to have been condemned unheard and discriminated against by the court when on the face of the record the firm of Waweru Gatonye had been served and was appearing for him.
Determination
12 I have considered the application, the affidavits and the oral submissions by counsel. The prayers for discharge of the orders of the court dated 31st January 2018 cannot be varied at this juncture since they have been extended by the parties by consent.
13 Most important is the fact that the court has not heard the application interpartes. In the circumstances, the application by the 2nd interested party is disallowed to pave room for the main application dated 3rd January 2018 to be heard. The following orders are made:
(i) The plaintiff to serve the 2nd interested party with all its pleadings.
(ii) The 2nd interested party to file and serve its defence and response to the notice of motion dated 3rd January 2018 within 14 days from date of service.
(iii) The 2nd interested party to file and serve its submissions to the notice of motion within the same 14 days.
(iv) The rest of the parties are expected to have complied with the directions given by Justice Achode on 31/1/18 in respect of filing submissions. If they have not, they too should file their submissions within 14 days.
(v) Mention on 19th November 2018 9 am to confirm compliance and take a date for highlighting of submissions.
Orders accordingly.
Signed, dated and delivered this 31st day of October 2018 in open court at Nairobi.
.........................................
HEDWIG I. ONG’UDI
JUDGE