[2019] KEHC 7469 (KLR)
The court found that the interim orders issued on 12/4/2019 and extended on 18/4/2019 for 28 days were still in force and had not lapsed as of the date of the ruling. Therefore, there was no need to extend the orders further at this stage. The court also noted that the applicant's claim regarding violation of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7469 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Kamau Ndirangu t/a Jean Ventures; Respondent: Kenya Coast National Polytechnic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 165 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Ruling
- Outcome
- Status quo order granted; no extension of interim orders; parties to proceed with intended applications.
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders
- 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
George Kamau Ndirangu t/a Jean Ventures
Applicant
Kenya Coast National Polytechnic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interlocutory Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interim orders issued on 12/4/2019 should be extended pending further proceedings.
- 2 Whether the actions of the respondent in ejecting the applicant and installing another contractor constitute a violation of court orders.
- 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the applicant if the orders are not extended.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interim orders issued on 12/4/2019 and extended on 18/4/2019 for 28 days were still in force and had not lapsed as of the date of the ruling. Therefore, there was no need to extend the orders further at this stage. The court also noted that the applicant's claim regarding violation of the orders and the respondent's actions would be the subject of a contemplated contempt application, which the court should not pre-empt. To balance the interests of both parties and prevent undue prejudice, the court ordered that the status quo prevailing as of the date of the ruling be maintained pending further orders, arbitration proceedings, or as future circumstances dictate....
Court Disposition
Status quo order granted; no extension of interim orders; parties to proceed with intended applications.
Orders
- The status quo now prevailing shall be maintained pending further orders of the court and proceedings on arbitration or as future circumstances dictate.
- The plaintiff to file the intended application for contempt, to be fixed for hearing together with the defendant's application dated 30/4/2019 on a priority basis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2019
GEORGE KAMAU NDIRANGU t/a JEAN VENTURES...APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA COAST NATIONAL POLYTECHNIC..............RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The two counsel here agreed on how to proceed with the defendants application dated 30/4/2019, on the face of the orders of the court of 18/4/2019. The only point of contention is whether or not to extend the interim orders issued on the 12/4/2019.
2. The plaintiff seeks that the orders need to be extended because while they were in existence the Defendant violated the same by ejecting the plaintiff and workmen from the site and installed another contractor. Counsel then said that the extension would facilitate the need to protect the integrity of the court process so that the defendant is not left to enjoy the benefit it has derived by non-compliance with court orders and that it intends to lodge an application for contempt against the defendant.
3. That request by the plaintiff was vehemently opposed by the defendants counsel on the basis that there is a third party to which the contract has been awarded and who is not yet a party to these proceedings and that extension of the orders are likely to invite anarcy in an institution of learning.
4. It was equally added that the contract duration and financial with is known in monetary terms and that any damage that any result in thus quantifiable and assessable in monetary terms and this damages would be an adequate remedy.
5. I have looked at the record and the orders of 18/4/2019 in particular. On that day the court extended the orders of 12/4/2019 for a period of 28 days. Those days are yet to lapse and will lapse on 16/5/2019. They are still in force. I do not think that just today those orders deserve being extended. More importantly however is the fact that there is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was ejected way back on the 17/4/2019 according to the Replying Affidavit of GEORGE KAMAU NDIRANGU at paragraph 7.
6. That act is what would form the basis of the intended application for contempt which this court should not pre-empt.
7. In my view it would be pre-emptive of the intended application at this time to make any comment on the actions of the defendants. I however have to balance the interest of both parties before me to ensure no prejudice visits one side unduly. That I consider can be best served by ordering that pending further orders of the court and proceedings on arbitration and as future circumstances would dictate the status quo now prevailing shall be maintained.
8. Once the plaintiff files the intended application, let the same be fixed for hearing together with that by the defendant dated 30/4/2019 on a date taken at the Registry on priority bases.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 15th day of May 2019.
P.J.O. OTIENO
JUDGE