[2012] KEHC 747 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 747 (KLR)

The court found that there were no interim orders in place to be extended, as the previous orders had lapsed and were not renewed by the magistrate. The dispute concerned a partnership that had broken down, and none of the parties was willing to work with the other. Any financial or in-kind contributions by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 747 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Magdaline Okora Gwere t/a Nakuru Golden Kids Academy; Defendant: Jane Majuma Odingo; Defendant: Everline A. Ochanda; Defendant: Juliet Boyani Nyamwea
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 364 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Extension of Interim Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
MJA Emukule
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Partnership Disputes, Preservation of Property
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Partnership Disputes Preservation of Property

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

Magdaline Okora Gwere t/a Nakuru Golden Kids Academy

Plaintiff

Jane Majuma Odingo

Defendant

Everline A. Ochanda

Defendant

Juliet Boyani Nyamwea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Extension of Interim Orders

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunctive orders issued by the lower court on 3rd July 2012 should be extended pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants would suffer prejudice if the extension is denied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were no interim orders in place to be extended, as the previous orders had lapsed and were not renewed by the magistrate. The dispute concerned a partnership that had broken down, and none of the parties was willing to work with the other. Any financial or in-kind contributions by the applicants could be addressed at trial and through discovery. The court concluded that no prejudice would be suffered by the applicants if the application was disallowed and therefore declined to grant the extension of injunctive relief sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The application dated 28th September 2012 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.