[2012] KEHC 18 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the established legal principles for the grant of either a temporary prohibitory injunction or a mandatory injunction. The applications did not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, nor did they show that the applicant would suffer irreparable...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 18 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kazungu Charo Madago (Administrator of the estate of Kitsao Madago); Defendant: Kaingu Kitsao; Defendant: Mohamed Hanif Wali Mohamed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 150 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Reinstatement
- Outcome
- applications dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Suit Property Disputes
- 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
Kazungu Charo Madago (Administrator of the estate of Kitsao Madago)
Applicant
Kaingu Kitsao
Defendant
Mohamed Hanif Wali Mohamed
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Reinstatement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary prohibitory injunction over LR KILIFI/MTONDIA/153.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a mandatory injunction for reinstatement to the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to meet the established legal principles for the grant of either a temporary prohibitory injunction or a mandatory injunction. The applications did not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, nor did they show that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages. Furthermore, the threshold for granting a mandatory injunction was not met, as the circumstances did not warrant such exceptional relief. Consequently, both applications were dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
applications dismissed with costs
Orders
- The plaintiff's applications dated 10th September, 2012 and 4th October, 2012 are dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Malindi
Civil Suit 150 of 2012
KAZUNGU CHARO MADAGO(Administrator
of the estate of Kitsao Madago).......................DECEASED
VERSUS
KAINGU KITSAO
MOHAMED HANIF WALI MOHAMED …....DEFENDANTS
RULING
1. I have considered all the material canvassed in respect of the two applications before me, as filed on 10th September, 2012 and 4th October, 2012 by the Plaintiff applicant. The applications seek temporary injunctive and reinstatement (mandatory orders, respectively, in favor of the Applicant against the Defendants with respect to the suit property herein, namely LR KILIFI/MTONDIA/153.
2. In my considered view the two applications have no merit, failing as they do to pass muster the principles governing the grant of item prohibitory or mandatory injunctions. The same are accordingly dismissed with costs. Detailed reasons for ruling to be delivered on 22nd February, 2013 at 2. 30pm.
Delivered and signed at Malindi this 13th December, 2012in the presence of Mr. Omolo for 2nd Defendant, 1st Defendant and applicant present.
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:12. 0pt;"Liberation Serif","serif";} </style> <![endif]