[2004] KEHC 182 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's expulsion from the respondent company was a result of a process involving the board of directors and dissatisfaction among co-growers. The applicant had a contract with the respondent, subject to certain conditions, which appeared to have been breached. The court determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 182 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Monicah Gesare Oburu; Respondent: Nelson Ombego
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 107 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Contractual Relationships, Expulsion From Company, Damages as Remedy
- 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
Monicah Gesare Oburu
Applicant
Nelson Ombego
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a mandatory interlocutory injunction compelling the respondent to accept her green tea leaves pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's expulsion from the respondent company was a result of a process involving the board of directors and dissatisfaction among co-growers. The applicant had a contract with the respondent, subject to certain conditions, which appeared to have been breached. The court determined that it could not compel the respondent to accept the applicant back under these circumstances. Furthermore, any loss suffered by the applicant could be adequately compensated by damages, as the respondent was a company of means. Therefore, the applicant would not suffer irreparable loss, and the requirements for granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction were not met. The...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
OF KISII
Misc Civ Appli 107 of 2004
MONICAH GESARE OBURU ……………………..………………………. APPLICANT
VERSUS
NELSON OMBEGO ……………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
RULING:
Applicant’s application is for grant of a mandatory interlocutory injunction compelling the respondent to accept the applicant’s green tea leaves from plot No. West Mugirango/Bosamaro East/1083 until the hearing and determination of the suit.
The applicant told court that he is a registered tea grower with the respondent company. He has 4,000 tea bushes and he delivers his tea to the respondent. His grower’s No. is NS 600034. He earns his income from tea. On 31/5/04 the respondent wrote to him and he was expelled from the company.
The application was opposed. The respondent stated that the board of directors met and discussed the applicant’s behaviour and he was expelled. His co-growers were dissatisfied with him. He caused a buying center to be deserted.
I have considered the application and the objection. The application has no merit. The applicant has a contract with the respondent. There are conditions to be met. The issue seems to have been exhaustively dealt with before the applicant was expelled. The court cannot now force the respondent to accept the applicant back if his co-growers are dissatisfied with him.
Further as stated by counsel for the respondent any loss the applicant might suffer can be adequately compensated by way of costs. The respondent is a busy company of means and it would not be difficult to pay any damages awarded. Thus the applicant will not suffer any irreparable loss.
In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
30/7/2004