[2021] KEELC 3056 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3056 (KLR)

The court held that its previous ruling and order did not restrain the 2nd defendant from convening any meetings, including general or extraordinary general meetings, provided that deliberations at such meetings do not touch on the user of the suit property, which is the subject matter of the ongoing suit. The court found the application for clarification to be unnecessary and somewhat mischievous, as the record and previous orders were clear that only discussions relating to the user of the suit property were restrained, not the holding of meetings per se. The court reiterated that statutory obligations to hold meetings remain unaffected, and only the deliberation of agenda items that...

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3056 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Moses Njoroge Thara; Plaintiff: Winfred Mwendia; Defendant: Actae Development Limited; Defendant: Six Sixty One Galu Beach Mgt Ltd; Defendant: Manjit Singh Brar (in his own right pleading/acting on behalf of Surinder Kaur Brar); Defendant: Nginya Mungai Lenneiye (in his own right and pleading/acting on behalf of Gugu Nolwandle Mahlangu); Defendant: Mount Kenya Academy Ltd; Defendant: Kapan Kumar K. Patel & Shreeti Kalpan Patel; Defendant: Jayany Kumar K. Patel; Defendant: Jagaji Holdings Limited; Defendant: Richard John Buckley & Allison Jane Bucklely; Defendant: Mehboob Mansurali H. Tejpar; Defendant: Piush R. Patel; Defendant: Julio Garrido-Mirapeix (Cerades Ltd)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
24 May 2021
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 196 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification of Previous Injunctive Order
Outcome
Application for clarification allowed to the extent of reiterating the scope of the previous order; no substantive change to the injunctive relief.
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Clarification of Orders, Meetings of Company, User of Property
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Clarification of Orders Meetings of Company User of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Njoroge Thara

Plaintiff

Winfred Mwendia

Plaintiff

Actae Development Limited

Defendant

Six Sixty One Galu Beach Mgt Ltd

Defendant

Manjit Singh Brar (in his own right pleading/acting on behalf of Surinder Kaur Brar)

Defendant

Nginya Mungai Lenneiye (in his own right and pleading/acting on behalf of Gugu Nolwandle Mahlangu)

Defendant

Mount Kenya Academy Ltd

Defendant

Kapan Kumar K. Patel & Shreeti Kalpan Patel

Defendant

Jayany Kumar K. Patel

Defendant

Jagaji Holdings Limited

Defendant

Richard John Buckley & Allison Jane Bucklely

Defendant

Mehboob Mansurali H. Tejpar

Defendant

Piush R. Patel

Defendant

Julio Garrido-Mirapeix (Cerades Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Clarification of Previous Injunctive Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court's ruling of 24th September 2019 restrains only the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for 2nd March 2019 or also applies to future meetings.
  2. 2 Whether the order restrains the 2nd defendant from convening any future meetings, including annual general meetings.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant may hold meetings provided deliberations do not touch on the user of the suit property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that its previous ruling and order did not restrain the 2nd defendant from convening any meetings, including general or extraordinary general meetings, provided that deliberations at such meetings do not touch on the user of the suit property, which is the subject matter of the ongoing suit. The court found the application for clarification to be unnecessary and somewhat mischievous, as the record and previous orders were clear that only discussions relating to the user of the suit property were restrained, not the holding of meetings per se. The court reiterated that statutory obligations to hold meetings remain unaffected, and only the deliberation of agenda items that...

Court Disposition

Application for clarification allowed to the extent of reiterating the scope of the previous order; no substantive change to the injunctive relief.

Orders

  • The ruling and order of 24th September 2019 did not restrain the 2nd defendant from convening any meetings, including general or extraordinary general meetings, provided deliberations do not touch on the user of the suit property.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.