[2009] KEHC 1412 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1412 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff is the undisputed legal and registered owner of the motor vehicle KAV 956 Q and the mounted drilling rig. The first defendant admitted the terms of the contract and agreed that the property is unlawfully held by the second defendant. The second defendant did not file any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1412 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rev. Njau Gichira (Suing as official of Fountain of Life Ministries); Defendant: Water Masters Kenya Ltd.; Defendant: P.J. Flowers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 398 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Detinue, Ownership of Property, Contractual Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Detinue Ownership of Property Contractual Disputes

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rev. Njau Gichira (Suing as official of Fountain of Life Ministries)

Plaintiff

Water Masters Kenya Ltd.

Defendant

P.J. Flowers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the release of motor vehicle KAV 956 Q and the mounted drilling rig from the second defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the continued detention of the plaintiff's property by the second defendant is lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case warranting the grant of the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff is the undisputed legal and registered owner of the motor vehicle KAV 956 Q and the mounted drilling rig. The first defendant admitted the terms of the contract and agreed that the property is unlawfully held by the second defendant. The second defendant did not file any counter-claim or disclose any legal basis for detaining the plaintiff's property. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a good chance of success and that there was no justification for the continued detention of the property. Accordingly, the court ordered the unconditional release of the vehicle and rig to the plaintiff and awarded costs against the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant shall unconditionally release the applicant’s motor vehicle KAV 956 Q to the applicant forthwith and in any case within the next 7 days of this order.
  • The 2nd defendant shall pay the costs of this application.