[2018] KEHC 9362 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunctions. The dispute was characterized as a manifestation of a family feud, and the court determined that mediation was the appropriate course of action to address the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9362 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nayan Mansukhlal Savla; Defendant: Piyush Mansukhlal Kachra Savla; Defendant: Mansukhlal Kachra Savla; Defendant: Jumbo Commodities Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 489 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction declined; matter referred to mediation.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Company Directors Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Corporate Governance
- 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
Nayan Mansukhlal Savla
Plaintiff
Piyush Mansukhlal Kachra Savla
Defendant
Mansukhlal Kachra Savla
Defendant
Jumbo Commodities Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction and Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of interlocutory injunction against the defendants.
- 2 Whether the management of the company by the 1st defendant amounts to fraudulent mismanagement and exclusion of other directors.
- 3 Whether the dispute should be resolved through mediation rather than immediate judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunctions. The dispute was characterized as a manifestation of a family feud, and the court determined that mediation was the appropriate course of action to address the underlying issues. Consequently, the court declined to make final orders on the notice of motion or the preliminary objection and instead directed that the matter be referred to mediation. If mediation fails, the matter may be referred back to the court for determination.
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction declined; matter referred to mediation.
Orders
- The Mediation Deputy Registrar is ordered to refer this matter for mediation forthwith.
- If the matter is not resolved through mediation, it shall be referred back to this court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 489 OF 2017
NAYAN MANSUKHLAL SAVLA..................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PIYUSH MANSUKHLAL KACHRA SAVLA..................................1ST DEFENDANT
MANSUKHLAL KACHRA SAVLA.................................................2ND DEFENDANT
JUMBO COMMODITIES LIMITED.............................................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Nayan Mansukhlal Savla (Nayan) has brought this action against his brother Piyush Mansukhlal Kachra Savla (Piyush), his father Mansukhlal Kachra Savla (Mansukhlal) and the company Jumbo Commodities Limited (the company).
2. Nayan by his plaint alleged that he, Piyushand Mansukhlal are co-directors of the company. That in May, 2017, Piyush began to ran the company and operated its bank accounts without involving the other directors. That he Piyush, was drawing large sums of money as his salary and petty cash. In paragraph 8 and 10 of the plaint, Nayan pleaded in regard to Piyush’s style running the company as follows:
“that the style of managing Jumbo Commodities Ltd solely in secrecy has culminated in putting the company in huge debts by taking huge loans and overdraft, which in the near future will make it crumble down and ran bankrupt...that owing to this state of affair the 1st defendant (Piyush) has resulted to running the affairs of the 3rd defendant (the company) fraudulently and mismanaging its operations to his advantage to the total exclusion of the other directors...”
3. Nayan has by his notice of motion dated 15th November, 2017, sought interlocutory injunction to restrain Piyush and Mansukhlal from further borrowing huge loans in the company’s name, to restrain Piyush from fraudulently mismanaging the company’s account, a mandatory injunction to issue commanding Piyush and Mansukhal to involve Nayan in the management and financial affairs of the company.
4. Under this ruling, this court was to make a ruling on the notice of motion dated 15th November, 2017 and the defendant’s Preliminary Objection dated 25th January, 2018. I have howerve considered both the application and the Preliminary Objection and all the affidavit evidence and the submissions. It has become clear that this suit is a manifestation of a family feud which is simmering. Moreover, there is no legal basis for granting the injunction sought by Nayan because he has not shown a prima facie case with probability of success for the injunction to be issued.
5. In my view, and in order to address the underlying problem that the parties before me are facing, I will not make final orders on the Notice of Motion or the Preliminary Objection. I will direct that the parties attend mediation in this matter. If the matter is not resolved through mediation, it shall be referred back to this court.
6. Accordingly, I order the Mediation Deputy Registrar of this Court to refer this matter for mediation forthwith.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this30thday of July2018.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Ruling read and delivered in open court in the presence of:
Court Assistant....................Sophie
........................................... for the Plaintiff
........................................... for the Defendants