[2002] KEHC 826 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial or irreparable injury that would result from the refusal of a temporary injunction pending appeal in a case involving a money decree. Mere assertions of potential loss or high chances of success on appeal, without specific evidence or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 826 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Geoffrey Marubu Mwangi; Respondent: Motor Mart Group Limited T/A Bruce Trucks & Equipment
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 517 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Money Decree, Irreparable Injury, Substantial Loss
- 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
Geoffrey Marubu Mwangi
Appellant
Motor Mart Group Limited T/A Bruce Trucks & Equipment
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a temporary injunction pending appeal should be granted in a case involving a money decree.
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial or irreparable injury or high chances of success on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any substantial or irreparable injury that would result from the refusal of a temporary injunction pending appeal in a case involving a money decree. Mere assertions of potential loss or high chances of success on appeal, without specific evidence or demonstration, are insufficient to warrant the grant of such an injunction. The court further noted that the inclusion of the injunction process in Order XLI rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules may cause confusion, as an order of stay pending appeal is generally sufficient in such circumstances. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction pending appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
APPELLATE SIDE
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2001
(From the original civil suit No. EJ 610/94 of 20….. of CMCC at
Nairobi)
GEOFFREY MARUBU MWANGI …………………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
MOTOR MART GROUP LIMITED
T/A BRUCE TRUCKS & EQUIPMENT …………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
I am not convinced this is a proper case for granting an order of a temporary injunction pending appeal.
There must be certain category of cases where such an application should be made and/or probably obtained; say where a litigant has lost a dispute over a piece of land and the winner starts a process to construct a structure thereon or that he/she wishes to proceed to dispose of or transfer the land to some third party.
But in case of money decree as in the present case I do not see how the applicant can succeed in obtaining an order of injunction without demonstrating that he will suffer substantial or irreparable injury or the chances of success of the appeal – what the appellant herein has not done at all.
To simply say the applicant has a counter claim against the respondent or that if an injunction is not made he will suffer substantial loss without demonstrating what these losses will be or how they will occur, or that he has high chances of success or appeal without showing what the chances are is not enough to convince the court of the need for the issue of a temporary injunction.
On the other hand I do not see the purpose of this amendment to Order XLI rule (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules which brought in injunction process when, to my mind, an order of stay pending appeal was sufficient! I am not saying this application is improperly before me but that the Rules Committee need to re examine this aspect of the matter to be if the inclusion of this amendment is not likely to be used by litigants to cause confusion!
This not withstanding, I am not convinced this is a proper case when an order of temporary injunction should be issued.
I dismiss this application with costs.
Delivered this 24th day of April, 2002.
D.K.S. AGANYANYA
JUDGE