[1998] KEHC 226 (KLR)

[1998] KEHC 226 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's affidavit did not comply with the legal requirements, as it was based on hearsay information from unnamed mutual friends without disclosure of sources or grounds. No evidence of ownership of the properties was provided at this stage. Given the drastic nature of the orders sought...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KEHC 226 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mercy Nduta King'ara; Defendant: Samuel King'ara Mikuro
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 2345 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Affidavit Evidence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Affidavit Evidence Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mercy Nduta King'ara

Plaintiff

Samuel King'ara Mikuro

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the legal threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the subject properties.
  2. 2 Whether the supporting affidavit complies with the requirements of law regarding admissible evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's affidavit did not comply with the legal requirements, as it was based on hearsay information from unnamed mutual friends without disclosure of sources or grounds. No evidence of ownership of the properties was provided at this stage. Given the drastic nature of the orders sought and the lack of admissible evidence, the court held that the applicant had not established a prima facie case or met the threshold for grant of an interlocutory injunction. The application was therefore dismissed, with the applicant advised to pursue her claim at trial where she can properly justify her case.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.