[2010] KEHC 3073 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 3073 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success against the 4th defendant, who holds a registered title and appears to be an innocent purchaser for value. The applicant did not show what substantial loss she would suffer if the injunction was not granted, as her remedy lies in damages rather than injunctive relief. The court also noted that the applicant had previously obtained injunctive orders and, if those were breached, the appropriate remedy was contempt proceedings, not a new application. On the balance of convenience, the court held it favoured the 4th defendant, who is in possession and has title. The court further observed...

Citation
[2010] KEHC 3073 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Grace Wambui Ndungu; Respondent: Jane Wambui Gachomba; Respondent: Edward Njau Waiharo; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Linus Njung’e Mungai
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 March 2010
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 4th defendants
Judges
AT Sitati
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Ownership Disputes, Innocent Purchaser, Multiple Suits Abuse, Prima Facie Case
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Ownership Disputes Innocent Purchaser Multiple Suits Abuse Prima Facie Case

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Wambui Ndungu

Applicant

Jane Wambui Gachomba

Respondent

Edward Njau Waiharo

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Linus Njung’e Mungai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting or refusing the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success against the 4th defendant, who holds a registered title and appears to be an innocent purchaser for value. The applicant did not show what substantial loss she would suffer if the injunction was not granted, as her remedy lies in damages rather than injunctive relief. The court also noted that the applicant had previously obtained injunctive orders and, if those were breached, the appropriate remedy was contempt proceedings, not a new application. On the balance of convenience, the court held it favoured the 4th defendant, who is in possession and has title. The court further observed...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 4th defendants

Orders

  • The applicant's application dated 15/01/2010 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd and 4th defendants.