[2010] KEHC 2564 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 2564 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success for an interlocutory injunction, given the existence of a sale agreement, ongoing payment of rent, and a prior court order restraining interference with possession. The defendants' conduct in forcefully taking possession and demolishing the perimeter wall was high-handed and not justified by the plaintiffs' failure to complete payment. However, the injunction was made conditional upon the plaintiffs paying all outstanding rent within seven days, failing which the order would lapse. The application for a mandatory injunction for the return of goods was declined because it was improperly...

Citation
[2010] KEHC 2564 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kent Libiso; Plaintiff: Itronix Ltd; Defendant: Cirkon Trust Co. Ltd; Defendant: Beaufort Investments Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
7 May 2010
Case Number
Civil Case 605 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction Applications
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted conditionally; mandatory injunction declined; costs in the cause.
Judges
FI Koome
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Fraudulent Transfer, Quiet Possession, Sale of Land, Mandatory Injunction
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Fraudulent Transfer Quiet Possession Sale of Land Mandatory Injunction

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent Libiso

Plaintiff

Itronix Ltd

Plaintiff

Cirkon Trust Co. Ltd

Defendant

Beaufort Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Mandatory Injunction Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit premises.
  2. 2 Whether the sale and transfer of the suit premises to the 2nd defendant was fraudulent and in breach of a prior court order.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction for the return of goods attached by a third party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case with a probability of success for an interlocutory injunction, given the existence of a sale agreement, ongoing payment of rent, and a prior court order restraining interference with possession. The defendants' conduct in forcefully taking possession and demolishing the perimeter wall was high-handed and not justified by the plaintiffs' failure to complete payment. However, the injunction was made conditional upon the plaintiffs paying all outstanding rent within seven days, failing which the order would lapse. The application for a mandatory injunction for the return of goods was declined because it was improperly...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted conditionally; mandatory injunction declined; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs granted a temporary injunction restraining defendants from evicting or interfering with their possession of LR No 1/811 Kilimani Nairobi, conditional upon payment of all outstanding rent within seven days.
  • Failure to pay outstanding rent within seven days will cause the injunction to lapse.