[2021] KEHC 6862 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6862 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence that the defendant was about to dispose of or remove its property from the jurisdiction with the intent to obstruct or delay execution of any decree. The plaintiff's assertions amounted to mere apprehension, unsupported by specific facts or proof...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6862 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fred Black Insurance Brokers Limited; Defendant: Jetways Airlines Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 54 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Attachment Before Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Attachment Before Judgment, Interlocutory Injunctions, Burden of Proof, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Attachment Before Judgment Interlocutory Injunctions Burden of Proof Risk of Dissipation of Assets

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fred Black Insurance Brokers Limited

Plaintiff

Jetways Airlines Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Attachment Before Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has met the legal threshold for attachment before judgment under Order 39 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence that the defendant intends to dispose of or remove its property to obstruct or delay execution of a potential decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence that the defendant was about to dispose of or remove its property from the jurisdiction with the intent to obstruct or delay execution of any decree. The plaintiff's assertions amounted to mere apprehension, unsupported by specific facts or proof of a reorganization or conduct by the defendant indicating a 'flight risk.' The court emphasized that attachment before judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted lightly or on the basis of unsubstantiated fears. As the legal threshold under Order 39 Rule 5 was not met, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 6th October 2020 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.