[1997] KECA 377 (KLR)

[1997] KECA 377 (KLR)

The Court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the first condition for the grant of an injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, namely, that there must be an arguable appeal. The Court was not convinced by the submissions of the applicant's counsel that there was an arguable appeal. As this...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1997] KECA 377 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kalenjin Enterprises Ltd; Respondent: James Cheruiyot; Respondent: Elijah Chelaite; Respondent: Alicen Chelaite; Respondent: Christopher Koech & 11 Others
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 108 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Appeals, Rule 5 2 B Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Appeals Rule 5 2 B Applications

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kalenjin Enterprises Ltd

Applicant

James Cheruiyot

Respondent

Elijah Chelaite

Respondent

Alicen Chelaite

Respondent

Christopher Koech & 11 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to warrant the grant of an injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the first condition for the grant of an injunction under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, namely, that there must be an arguable appeal. The Court was not convinced by the submissions of the applicant's counsel that there was an arguable appeal. As this threshold was not met, the application for injunction could not succeed and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.