[2021] KEHC 12950 (KLR)
The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its ruling on the application for injunction and could not revisit the matter to order the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages. The court noted that the issue of an undertaking as to damages was not raised or addressed by the parties at the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 12950 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Megascope Healthcare Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Nation Media Group Limited; Defendant: Mutuma Mathiu; Defendant: Emmanuel Juma; Defendant: Dennis Okari; Defendant: Godwins Agutu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit E094 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Undertaking as to Damages After Injunction Orders
- Outcome
- Oral application for undertaking as to damages declined.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Functus Officio, Discretionary Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Megascope Healthcare Kenya Ltd
Plaintiff
Nation Media Group Limited
Defendant
Mutuma Mathiu
Defendant
Emmanuel Juma
Defendant
Dennis Okari
Defendant
Godwins Agutu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Oral Application for Undertaking as to Damages After Injunction Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can order the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages after delivering its ruling granting injunction.
- 2 Whether the court is functus officio after delivering its ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it was functus officio after delivering its ruling on the application for injunction and could not revisit the matter to order the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages. The court noted that the issue of an undertaking as to damages was not raised or addressed by the parties at the time of arguing the application for injunction. Since no application for review had been made, the court declined to grant the defendants' oral application for an undertaking as to damages after the fact.
Court Disposition
Oral application for undertaking as to damages declined.
Orders
- The oral application by the defendants for an order directing the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages is declined.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL SUIT NO. E094 OF 2020
MEGASCOPE HEALTHCARE KENYA LTD...........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED...............................................1ST DEFENDANT
MUTUMA MATHIU, THE EDITORAL DIRECTOR
NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED.............................................2ND DEFENDANT
EMMANUEL JUMA, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED............................................3RD DEFENDANT
DENNIS OKARI.............................................................................. 4TH DEFENDANT
GODWINS AGUTU..........................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1) In this file and in Nairobi H.C.C. E136 of 2020 Crown solutions Ltd =vs= Dennis Okari and 3 others this court issued both mandatory and prohibitory orders of injunction against the defendant. Mr. Kiragu Kimani, learned advocate for the defendants urged this court to make an order directing the plaintiff to give an undertaking as to damages.
2) The plaintiff’s advocate is of the submission that the court having delivered its ruling is rendered functus officio.
3) In this case it is apparent that the court did not make an order directing the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages as a condition for the grant of the order of injunction at the time of delivering its ruling.
4) It is a discretionary order which the court may make in some cases. The parties did not address this court over the issue at the time of arguing the application.
5) The defendants’ advocate urged the court to consider making the order after it delivered its ruling.
6) With respect, I agree with the plaintiff’s advocate that the court is rendered functus officio in the matter and it cannot go back to the ruling unless a party seeks to review the same which is not the case in the instant application.
7) In the end, I decline to grant the oral application.
Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 21st day of May, 2021.
............................
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
………………………… for the Plaintiff
……………………..….. for the Defendants