[2009] KEHC 499 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 499 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The agreement dated 13th January 2009 and a letter to the Registrar of Companies, which the defendant did not dispute, supported the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had relinquished his shares and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 499 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gilgil Distributors Limited; Defendant: Martin Giathi Mburu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 59 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application for temporary injunction allowed
Legal Topics
Company Directorship Disputes, Share Transfer Agreements, Injunctive Relief, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Directorship Disputes Share Transfer Agreements Injunctive Relief Interlocutory Orders

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

Parties

Gilgil Distributors Limited

Plaintiff

Martin Giathi Mburu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from holding himself out as a director or interfering with the company.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant relinquished his shares and directorship in the plaintiff company as per the agreement dated 13th January 2009.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The agreement dated 13th January 2009 and a letter to the Registrar of Companies, which the defendant did not dispute, supported the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had relinquished his shares and directorship. The defendant’s failure to address these documents weighed against his assertion that he remained a director. To prevent further interference with the company’s operations and to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the court granted the temporary injunction sought by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application for temporary injunction allowed

Orders

  • Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, the defendant is restrained from acting, conducting and/or holding himself out as a director and/or shareholder or in any way interfering with the operations of the plaintiff company.
  • The plaintiff shall have the costs of this application.