[1996] KECA 14 (KLR)

[1996] KECA 14 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable points to be raised on appeal, as there was no evidence that the annual general meeting was wrongly called or held, nor that any existing injunction had been ignored. Additionally, there was no satisfactory evidence that the appeal would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] KECA 14 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kihiu Mwiri Farmers Co. Ltd & Six Others; Respondent: Benson Ngumi Job & Six Others
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 162 of 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AM Akiwumi, AB Shah
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Appeal Stay, Rule 5 2 B Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Appeal Stay 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.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kihiu Mwiri Farmers Co. Ltd & Six Others

Applicant

Benson Ngumi Job & Six Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated arguable grounds for appeal to warrant a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any arguable points to be raised on appeal, as there was no evidence that the annual general meeting was wrongly called or held, nor that any existing injunction had been ignored. Additionally, there was no satisfactory evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction was not granted. The court also noted that allegations of theft against the respondents were unsupported by evidence, and that two of the applicants did not support the application. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was dismissed with costs to be paid personally by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th applicants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs to be paid personally by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th applicants.