[2024] KEHC 16244 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 16244 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had previously been granted an interlocutory injunction on 8th May 2017 and that there was no material change in circumstances or opposition from the respondents to warrant discharge of the order. The application dated 22nd November 2024 was supported by affidavit evidence and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 16244 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lake Victoria Fish Two Thousand Limited; Respondent: Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation; Respondent: Garam Investmet Auctioneers; Respondent: Keysian Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Case 39 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayer No. 2; interlocutory injunction confirmed.
Judges
MS Shariff
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Interlocutory Orders, Enforcement of Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Injunctions Interlocutory Orders Enforcement of 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

Lake Victoria Fish Two Thousand Limited

Applicant

Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation

Respondent

Garam Investmet Auctioneers

Respondent

Keysian Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to confirmation of the interlocutory injunction granted on 8th May 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the application dated 22nd November 2024 should be allowed in terms of prayer No. 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had previously been granted an interlocutory injunction on 8th May 2017 and that there was no material change in circumstances or opposition from the respondents to warrant discharge of the order. The application dated 22nd November 2024 was supported by affidavit evidence and documentation, and the court was satisfied that the threshold for confirmation of the injunction had been met. Accordingly, the court allowed the application in terms of prayer No. 2, confirming the subsistence of the injunction pending further directions.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayer No. 2; interlocutory injunction confirmed.

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd November 2024 is allowed in terms of prayer No. 2.
  • The interlocutory injunction granted on 8th May 2017 is confirmed and remains in force.