[2011] KEHC 3879 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 3879 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence showed that the plaintiff provided substantial funds for the purchase and development of the suit property, which was registered in the defendant's name. The court recognized the potential existence of a resulting or implied trust in favour of the plaintiff, as the property was acquired with his funds, and the defendant's legal title did not preclude the operation of such a trust. The court held that there was a real danger of unjust enrichment and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the property were disposed of before...

Citation
[2011] KEHC 3879 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hamm Helmut; Defendant: Farida Riziki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
4 March 2011
Case Number
Commercial Suit 27 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
interlocutory injunction granted
Judges
JB Ojwang
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Conversion of Funds
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Resulting Trust Injunctive Relief Ownership Dispute Conversion of Funds

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamm Helmut

Plaintiff

Farida Riziki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of the suit property pending trial.
  2. 2 Whether the relationship and financial arrangements between the parties give rise to a resulting or implied trust in favour of the plaintiff over the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence showed that the plaintiff provided substantial funds for the purchase and development of the suit property, which was registered in the defendant's name. The court recognized the potential existence of a resulting or implied trust in favour of the plaintiff, as the property was acquired with his funds, and the defendant's legal title did not preclude the operation of such a trust. The court held that there was a real danger of unjust enrichment and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages if the property were disposed of before...

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunction granted

Orders

  • The defendant by herself, her servants and agents are hereby restrained from marketing, disposing of, transferring and/or in any other manner alienating Plot Title No. Kwale/Ukunda/4078 pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the cause.