[2012] KEHC 3824 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3824 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating statutory wayleave rights over the suit premises and that the reinforcement of electricity supply lines was interrupted by the respondent. The respondent did not deny ownership of the premises but denied interference. The court held that the respondent would not suffer prejudice as it denied interfering with the applicant's works, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as halting the project would cause significant losses to both the applicant and the public. The court concluded that any damages suffered by the respondent could be compensated by costs or damages. Consequently, the...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3824 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited; Defendant: Kings Collection Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 615 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction allowed.
Judges
FI Koome
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Wayleave Rights, Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Wayleave Rights Prima Facie Case Balance of Convenience

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited

Plaintiff

Kings Collection Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the granting of an order of injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case by demonstrating statutory wayleave rights over the suit premises and that the reinforcement of electricity supply lines was interrupted by the respondent. The respondent did not deny ownership of the premises but denied interference. The court held that the respondent would not suffer prejudice as it denied interfering with the applicant's works, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as halting the project would cause significant losses to both the applicant and the public. The court concluded that any damages suffered by the respondent could be compensated by costs or damages. Consequently, the...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction allowed.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining the respondent, its employees, agents, servants or anybody acting on its behalf from interfering, impeding, obstructing or denying the applicant or its agents from carrying out its system reinforcement programme on the suit premises for twelve months.
  • The officer commanding police (OCS), Athi River, to assist and ensure enforcement of the court order.