[1986] KEHC 5 (KLR)
The court upheld the preliminary objection on the ground that the application for an injunction was not compliant with Order XXXIX rule 2, which requires that such applications be supported by only one affidavit. The objection was sustained only in relation to the injunction prayer, and the applicant was permitted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1986] KEHC 5 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harun Gatehe Njuguna; Respondent: Francis Kiarie Ndirangu; Respondent: Renguti Gikambura Hotel Company Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Winding Up Cause 1 of 1986
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld in part
- Legal Topics
- Company Winding Up, Oppression of Minority, Directors Powers, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Harun Gatehe Njuguna
Applicant
Francis Kiarie Ndirangu
Respondent
Renguti Gikambura Hotel Company Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for an injunction must be supported by only one affidavit under Order XXXIX rule 2.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection to the injunction prayer is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court upheld the preliminary objection on the ground that the application for an injunction was not compliant with Order XXXIX rule 2, which requires that such applications be supported by only one affidavit. The objection was sustained only in relation to the injunction prayer, and the applicant was permitted to proceed with the remaining prayers in the chamber summons. The ruling was limited to the procedural defect regarding the affidavit supporting the injunction application.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld in part
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld as it relates to the prayer for an injunction.
- The applicant may proceed with prayers 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the chamber summons dated 26/2/86.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Winding Up Cause 1 of 1986
in The Matter of Renguti Gikambura Hotel Company Ltd and
In The Matter of Companies Act (CAP 486 –Laws of Kenya
Ruling.
According to the Petition of Mr Harun Gatehe Njuguna in this winding-up cause, RENGUTI GIKAMBURA HOTEL CO LTD (herein after to be referred to as “The Company”) was incorporated on 17th May 1984. The subscribers to the Company, who are also us directors, are the Petitioner and Messrs Francis Kiarie Ndirangu and Daniel Njenga Kamau. The Petitioner alleges that Mr Ndirangu who acts as the Managing Director of the Company is running the affairs of the company as if he is the sale proprietor at the exclusion of the other two directors. In the circumstances the petitioner feels that the present running of the company is oppressive to himself and the other members, and that it would be just and equitable to have the company wound up in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, Cap 486, Laws of Kenya.
Hence his Petitioner in this cause the application before me now is contained in the chamber summons dated 26th February 1986 in which the petitioner prays for various reliefs including a Company injunction to restrain Mr Ndirangu from dealing in any manner with the property and the premises of the Company till the determination of this cause.
When however the chamber summons came before me for hearing on 18th March 1986 Mr Kiania Njau for the respondent raised a preliminary objection. The ruling relates to the preliminary objection.
Mr Kiania Njau argues that under O.xxxix v.2 application such as this issue be supported by only one affidavit and no more or several.
Mr Kiania Njau relies on the decision of Chanan Singh and in ABDUL AZIZ SULEMAN v. SOUTH BRITISH INSURANCE CO LTD 1965 E.A. 66.
I agree with Mr Kiania Njau’s contentions, and I must uphold his preliminary objection. But that is as it relates to the prayer for an injunction as is contained at prayer NO 1 in the chamber summons. In other words, the preliminary objection succeeds only on the question of an injunction, for O. deals with injunctions only. It follows, therefore, that the Petitioner / Applicant may proceed with the rest of his prayes (i.e. 2,3,4, and 5) of his chamber summons of 26/2/86.
April 29, 1986
Mbaya, J