[2001] KEHC 797 (KLR)
The court held that it could not grant an injunction after judgment where the same prayers had already been dismissed in the main suit. Granting the injunction would amount to reinstating orders that had been conclusively determined, thereby undermining the finality of the judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 797 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James K. Muriuki & Others; Defendant: Goodnews Church of Africa & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1416 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Post Judgment Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Post Judgment 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
James K. Muriuki & Others
Plaintiff
Goodnews Church of Africa & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Post Judgment Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can grant an injunction after judgment has been delivered pending an intended appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for injunction is properly brought under Order 39 rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules after dismissal of the suit.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs have complied with the necessary procedural requirements for stay or injunction pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it could not grant an injunction after judgment where the same prayers had already been dismissed in the main suit. Granting the injunction would amount to reinstating orders that had been conclusively determined, thereby undermining the finality of the judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had not complied with the proper procedural requirements for seeking a stay or injunction pending appeal, such as filing a notice of appeal or an application under the correct provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
Orders
- The application for injunction is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
1. Order 39 rule 1, 2, and 2A Section 3A
2. Prayer for an Injunction to issue pending
an intended appeal against court’s judgment
and after judgment has been delivered
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1416 OF 1995
JAMES K. MURIUKI & OTHERS ..................................... PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
GOODNEWS CHURCH OF AFRICA & OTHERS .....DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
The application before me is for an injunction under Order 39 rule 2, 2, and 2A Civil Procedure Rules pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Order 39 rule 2 was awarded by Legal Notice 36/2000 to read:-
“In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any head whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit and either before or after judgment apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of a like kind arising one of the same contract or relating to the same property or right”.
“2A (1) The court may by order grant under injunction on such terms as to inquiry as to damages the donation of injunction, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise as the court thinks fit.”
On the 20th of November 2000 I delivered judgment in favour of the defendants in this case by dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff’s sort an injunction against the defendants from:-
a) alienating transferring selling or dispossessing and interfering with Plot No. 36/VII/586 Eastleigh Nairobi.
b) an injunction from interferring with the plaintiff’s quite employment of a church, nursery school and the area Sunday thereby and or evicting them from the suit premises.
c) a declaration that the transfer of the premises to the trustees was irregular
d) The transfer was unconstitutional
e) The Commissioner of Lands be ordered to cancel the transfer and registration of titles.
f) General damages
g) Costs
h) Any orders as the court deems fit.
The plaintiff’s being dissatisfied with the court’s decision of dismissing all the above claims, filed this application whereby dated the 22. 11. 2000 praying that the court issue the same injunction that was dismissed in the plaint.
The matter was not prosecuted immediately as the parties thought they would reach an amicable solution. This was not forthcoming and on the 12. 2.2001 the plaintiffs argued their application.
The gist of their arguments is that the court can issue an injunction after judgment and therefore this should be done. The reasons being that the plaintiffs have appealed against the court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.
Then the advocate for the defendants strongly objected to the application stating that there has been no notice of appeal filed since the judgment had been delivered.
Nonetheless, there ought to be, he argued, an application for stay of execution together with this one.
I believe the advocate for the plaintiff should have filed an application under Order 44 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
In principal no appeal can operate as a stay but the court for sufficient reasons may order a stay.
Under order 44 rule 6 it states that:-
“notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) of this rule the High Court shall have power in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction or such terms as it thinks just provided the procedure of instituting an appeal from a subordinate court or tribunal has been complied with.”
It seems that this would have perhaps been the correct rule to have read instead of Order 39 rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules.
I find that I had dismissed this suit for the same prayers sought under Order 39 rule 2 Civil Procedure Rules, inter alia. That I hereby cannot reinstate my orders by issuing yet again another injunction. This would defeat the purposes of the judgment.
I hereby decline to make orders for an injunction after judgment.
I dismiss the application with costs to the 1st defendant. the Attorney General was absent during the argument and I decline to award him costs.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2001 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE