[2022] KEHC 12205 (KLR)
The court found that granting the full range of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs would amount to determining the main suit at the interlocutory stage, which is impermissible. However, the court considered it appropriate to continue the freezing of the 9th defendant’s bank accounts to preserve the subject...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12205 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Njuguna; Plaintiff: Francis Njenga Kamau; Defendant: Geoffrey Ndungi Wanjohi; Defendant: Edward Gitau Gateyu; Defendant: Daniel Kamau Macau; Defendant: Pauline Wanjiku Wangai; Defendant: Leonard Mbiu Wagacha; Defendant: Francis Munyinyi; Defendant: Esther Njeri; Defendant: Mary Wangarai Kangethe; Defendant: Kikuyu & Chura Trading Co Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case E004 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Partial grant of application; continued freezing of bank account ordered; other injunctive relief declined.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Company Directorship Disputes, Interlocutory Injunctions, Freezing Orders, 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
Joseph Njuguna
Plaintiff
Francis Njenga Kamau
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Ndungi Wanjohi
Defendant
Edward Gitau Gateyu
Defendant
Daniel Kamau Macau
Defendant
Pauline Wanjiku Wangai
Defendant
Leonard Mbiu Wagacha
Defendant
Francis Munyinyi
Defendant
Esther Njeri
Defendant
Mary Wangarai Kangethe
Defendant
Kikuyu & Chura Trading Co Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to continued freezing of the 9th defendant's bank accounts pending trial.
- 2 Whether an injunction should issue restraining the 1st to 8th defendants from collecting rent or performing functions as directors of the 9th defendant company at the interlocutory stage.
- 3 Whether granting the injunctions sought would amount to determining the main suit at an interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that granting the full range of injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs would amount to determining the main suit at the interlocutory stage, which is impermissible. However, the court considered it appropriate to continue the freezing of the 9th defendant’s bank accounts to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending trial. The court declined to grant the other prayers for injunction, specifically those restraining the 1st to 8th defendants from collecting rent or performing functions as directors, as these issues are central to the main suit and should be determined at trial. The court directed the parties to prepare for full trial and barred further...
Court Disposition
Partial grant of application; continued freezing of bank account ordered; other injunctive relief declined.
Orders
- Prayer No. 3 of the amended notice of motion is granted as prayed (continued freezing of the 9th defendant's bank account).
- Parties are ordered to prepare their respective cases for trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
Njuguna & another v Wanjohi & 8 others (Civil Case E004 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 12205 (KLR) (16 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12205 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kiambu
Civil Case E004 of 2020
MM Kasango, J
June 16, 2022
Between
Joseph Njuguna
1st Plaintiff
Francis Njenga Kamau
2nd Plaintiff
and
Geoffrey Ndungi Wanjohi
1st Defendant
Edward Gitau Gateyu
2nd Defendant
Daniel Kamau Macau
3rd Defendant
Pauline Wanjiku Wangai
4th Defendant
Leonard Mbiu Wagacha
5th Defendant
Francis Munyinyi
6th Defendant
Esther Njeri
7th Defendant
Mary Wangarai Kangethe
8th Defendant
Kikuyu & Chura Trading Co Ltd
9th Defendant
Ruling
1. The plaintiffs filed this action seeking declaratory Orders:-That they are the validly elected directors of the 9th defendant company;a.That the 1st to 8th defendants be compelled to execute and present documents of their cessation of being directors of 9th defendant company;b.An order of inunction restraining 1st to 8th defendant from performing functions of directors of 9th defendant company; andc.An order directing 1st to 8th defendant to hand over to the plaintiff original documents owned by 9th defendant company.
2. On November 16, 2020 this court ordered the freezing of 9th defendant’s bank accounts.
3. On would have expected the plaintiffs to expend their energy thereafter to ensure the main suit is heard and determined, but instead the plaintiff filed an application amended on March 19, 2021.
4. The plaintiffs by that application seek the continued freezing of the bank account and for injunction to stop 1st to 8th defendant collecting rent of 9th defendant company.
5. The only order that commends itself to me is the order continuing to fresh the bank account. The court declines to grant the other prayer for injunction. This is because to grant those other orders is tantamount to determining the main suit at interlocutory stage. I order that the parties begin to prepare for the full trial of this case.
Disposition 6. The ruling of this court in respect to the amended notice of motion filed in court on April 1, 2021 is:-a.Prayer No. 3 of that application is granted as prayed.b.The parties are ordered to prepare their respective cases for trial.c.No further applications will be filed by any party hereof without the leave of the court.d.The costs of the application shall be in the cause.e.At the reading of this Ruling a pre-trial date shall be fixed.
RULING DATED and DELIVERED at KIAMBU this 16th day of JUNE, 2022. MARY KASANGOJUDGECoram:Court Assistant MouriceFor the Plaintiffs: Mr. WachiraFor the 1st Defendants : N/ACOURTRuling delivered virtually.MARY KASANGOJUDGE