[2013] KEHC 6743 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6743 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was for monetary damages, part of which had already been deposited in court by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not suffer irreparable loss justifying a temporary injunction. The injunction served only to punish the Defendant by halting reconstruction of his residence, which continued to deteriorate, and was not warranted in the circumstances. The court also found no basis for requiring the Plaintiff to deposit security for the Defendant's intended counterclaim, as no such counterclaim was on record. Accordingly, the orders granting the temporary injunction were set aside, and the Defendant's application succeeded save for the...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6743 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Macplan Engineering Services Ltd; Defendant: Peter Grundhlehner
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Case Number
Civil Case 516 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside the temporary injunction granted; Plaintiff's application for security for costs refused; costs awarded to Defendant.
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Security for Costs, Breach of Contract, Building Contracts
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Security for Costs Breach of Contract Building Contracts

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

Parties

Macplan Engineering Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Peter Grundhlehner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with his property should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to retain the benefit of the injunction when its claim is for monetary damages and the sum claimed has been deposited in court.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to an order requiring the Plaintiff to deposit security for the Defendant's intended counterclaim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was for monetary damages, part of which had already been deposited in court by the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not suffer irreparable loss justifying a temporary injunction. The injunction served only to punish the Defendant by halting reconstruction of his residence, which continued to deteriorate, and was not warranted in the circumstances. The court also found no basis for requiring the Plaintiff to deposit security for the Defendant's intended counterclaim, as no such counterclaim was on record. Accordingly, the orders granting the temporary injunction were set aside, and the Defendant's application succeeded save for the...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside the temporary injunction granted; Plaintiff's application for security for costs refused; costs awarded to Defendant.

Orders

  • The orders granted to the Plaintiff on 22nd December 2011 are set aside.
  • The Defendant's prayer for deposit of security by the Plaintiff is refused.