[2021] KEHC 13228 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure when seeking ex parte injunctive orders over the respondent's bank account, as she exaggerated the account balance and did not provide evidence to support her claim when challenged. This lack of candour amounted to material non-disclosure,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 13228 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: MO; Respondent: AJA
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case E009 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Related Applications
- Outcome
- Partial grant and partial discharge of injunction; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Injunctive Relief, Trusts in Family Property, Full and Frank Disclosure
- 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
MO
Applicant
AJA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Related Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from disposing of matrimonial properties and funds pending determination of the originating summons.
- 2 Whether the applicant made full and frank disclosure when seeking ex parte orders regarding the bank account.
- 3 Whether the injunction over the respondent's bank account should be discharged for material non-disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure when seeking ex parte injunctive orders over the respondent's bank account, as she exaggerated the account balance and did not provide evidence to support her claim when challenged. This lack of candour amounted to material non-disclosure, warranting the discharge of the injunction over the bank account. However, the respondent did not object to the preservation of the listed land parcels, and the court confirmed the temporary injunction over those properties pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons. The court exercised its discretion to ensure fairness between the parties in a family...
Court Disposition
Partial grant and partial discharge of injunction; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Temporary injunction confirmed in respect of Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx, Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx, Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx and East Alego/Mulaha/xxxx; these properties shall not be sold, transferred or disposed of until the hearing and determination of the originating summons.
- Temporary injunction in relation to A/c No. xxxx at Equity Bank, Siaya Branch, in the name of the respondent is discharged and set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. E009 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 13 OF TH MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY ACT, 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
BETWEEN
MO........................................................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
AJA...................................................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The applicant MO and the respondent AJA got married in 1983. They solemnized their marriage on 16th August 1994 at the Registrar’s Office in Nairobi. They have two adult children. The applicant has filed Divorce Cause No. 4189 of 2021at the Chief Magistrate’s Court Milimani seeking the dissolution of the marriage.
2. The applicant filed originating summons dated 25th February 2021 seeking the declaration that the following properties which were registered in the name of the respondent were single handedly acquired by her and were held in trust for her:-
(a) Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx;
(b) Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx;
(c) East Alego/Mulaha/xxxx;
(d) Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx;
(e) Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx; and
(f) all those properties acquired during the marriage and which the respondent has transferred to his agents and/or servants.
It was further sought that it be declared that all the monies in non-resident Equity Bank, Siaya Branch, A/c No. xxxx in the name of the respondent is held for the benefit of both of them, and that the account is held in trust for the applicant.
3. With the summons was filed an application seeking that, pending the hearing and determination of the application interpartes, the Kshs. 287,990,664/= in the account should not be accessed, withdrawn or transferred; and that the respondent, his agents and/or servants, be restrained from selling or otherwise disposing the lands and properties. On hearing this urgent application exparte, the court granted the interlocutory injunction. The application was set down for interparte hearing. This ruling is in regard to that hearing.
4. The respondent filed a replying affidavit to oppose the application, and also filed an application dated 24th March 2021 to discharge, set aside and/or vary the injunction orders issued on 5th March 2021. The two applications were heard together.
5. The respondent’s case was that the court was misled into granting the injunction. First, that the account at Equity was his own account for his daily expenses and that the money therein did not belong to the applicant. Secondly, the money in the account was not Kshs.287,990,664/61. Regarding the parcels of land, the respondent stated that he had no intention of disposing of any of them, and that they were jointly acquired during the marriage without any party keeping records of contribution. Nonetheless, he had no problem if the land parcels were preserved to await the hearing and determination of the originating summons.
6. In that case, the court confirms the temporary injunction in respect of Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx, Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx, Siaya/Mulaha/xxxx and East Alego/Mulaha/xxxx. The properties shall not be sold, transferred and or disposed of until the hearing and determination of the originating summons.
7. As for the money at Equity Bank, the applicant, when she came to court exparte for the orders, was duty bound to be candid and to make the full possible disclosure (Hussein Ali & 4 Others –v- Commission of Lands, Land Registrar & 7 Others [2013]eKLR). I find that she did not. She swore that the account had Kshs.287,990,664/=. When the respondent swore that the account had only Kshs.1,313,066/61 she did not file any further affidavit to deny that, or to produce the bank statement to show the amount it had. It does appear that alleging that the account had Kshs.287,990,664/= was deliberately intended to influence the court in granting the exparte orders.
8. An injunction is a discretionary and equitable remedy that can only be granted to a deserving party. Where the party has misled the court into giving him an injunction, the same has to be discharged immediately the truth comes to light.
9. Consequently, I discharge and set aside the temporary injunction in relation to A/c No. xxxx at Equity Bank, Siaya Branch, in the name of the respondent.
10. In any case, there has been no demonstration that the respondent cannot ultimately refund the Kshs.1,303,066/61 if at the end of the day it is found that it was the applicant’s money.
11. I ask that the parties do bear their own costs as this is a family dispute.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2021.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE