[2021] KEELC 3208 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3208 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents, having been granted 14 days to file affidavits in reply and having failed to comply, left the applicants' application unopposed. In the absence of any rebuttal or evidence from the respondents, and upon consideration of the application, the court was satisfied that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3208 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kevin Mutahi Shikanga; Plaintiff: Florence Lilian Akinyi Akoth; Plaintiff: Peter Collins Okoth; Defendant: Kisumu City Board; Defendant: County Government of Kisumu; Defendant: Oxford Investments Limited; Respondent: Faulu Microfinance Bank Limited
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case EO12 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application allowed. Prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 8/2/2021 granted. Costs in the cause.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Non Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Non Compliance With Court Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Mutahi Shikanga

Plaintiff

Florence Lilian Akinyi Akoth

Plaintiff

Peter Collins Okoth

Plaintiff

Kisumu City Board

Defendant

County Government of Kisumu

Defendant

Oxford Investments Limited

Defendant

Faulu Microfinance Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' failure to file replying affidavits within the stipulated period affects the applicants' entitlement to orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, having been granted 14 days to file affidavits in reply and having failed to comply, left the applicants' application unopposed. In the absence of any rebuttal or evidence from the respondents, and upon consideration of the application, the court was satisfied that the applicants were entitled to the orders sought in prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion. The court exercised its discretion to grant the orders, noting that the respondents' non-compliance with court directions justified granting the relief sought by the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 8/2/2021 granted. Costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Prayers 4 and 5 of the notice of motion dated 8/2/2021 are granted in favour of the applicants.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.