[2009] KEHC 3296 (KLR)
The court found that neither party had provided conclusive evidence as to the ownership of the attached animals. In the absence of such evidence, and to prevent possible injustice, the court determined that the appropriate course was to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, both parties were restrained from...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3296 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Evans Matheka Karanja; Defendant: O’L Kalou Farmers SACCO Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 96 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction allowed. Status quo to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Ownership Disputes, Wrongful Attachment
- 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
Evans Matheka Karanja
Plaintiff
O’L Kalou Farmers SACCO Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from selling the attached animals pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the attached animals belong to the plaintiff or his father.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that neither party had provided conclusive evidence as to the ownership of the attached animals. In the absence of such evidence, and to prevent possible injustice, the court determined that the appropriate course was to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, both parties were restrained from disposing of the animals until the suit is heard and determined, thereby preserving the subject matter of the dispute.
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction allowed. Status quo to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit.
Orders
- The defendant, by itself, its agents and/or servants, is restrained from selling the attached animals pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- The plaintiff is restrained from disposing of the attached animals until the suit is heard and determined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Case 96 of 2009
EVAN MATHEA KARANJA……………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
O’L KALOU FARMERS SACCO LTD……....…Defendant
RULING
EVANS MATHEKA KARANJA, the plaintiff in this case, claims that on 18th March 2009 M/S Muibau Agencies attached his cattle on instructions of the defendant for a debt owed by his father to the defendant. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit he applied for an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with the sale of his animals until this suit is heard and determined. Mr. Chege for the plaintiff urged me to allow the application as the plaintiff does not owe any money to the defendant and the attachment has therefore no basis.
Relying on the replying affidavit Miss Muthoni the Secretary of the defendant company argued that the plaintiff’s application is intended to shield his father from payment of due and just debts due to the defendant. She contended that the animals were attached from the plaintiff’s father’s farm and therefore they belonged to the defendant’s father.
Ownership of animals cannot be proved by any documents. Other than Miss Muthoni’s word there is nothing to prove that the attached animals belong to the plaintiff’s father. There is equally nothing to prove that they belong to the plaintiff other than his own word. In the circumstacned the order that commends itself to me to issue in this matter is to maintain the status quo until this matter is heard and determined. I therefore allow this application and order that pending the hearing and determination of this suit the defendant by itself, its agents and/or servants are hereby restrained from selling the defendant’s attached animals. The plaintiff is also restrained from disposing of those animals until this suit is heard and determined. The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the suit.
DATED and delivered at Nakuru this 24th day of June, 2009.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.