[2004] KEHC 66 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff, as a widow of a founder member and a shareholder, had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The court held that the defendants' actions in seeking to evict her and in holding themselves out as directors without proper notification or process could cause...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 66 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nyambura Mwangi; Defendant: Stephen Maina Kimanga; Defendant: Muturi Kanyi; Defendant: Peter Mwangi Macharia; Defendant: Githinji Mwangi; Defendant: Gichuhi Macharia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case Case 7 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- injunction granted
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Matrimonial Property Rights, Company Directorship Disputes
- 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
Nyambura Mwangi
Plaintiff
Stephen Maina Kimanga
Defendant
Muturi Kanyi
Defendant
Peter Mwangi Macharia
Defendant
Githinji Mwangi
Defendant
Gichuhi Macharia
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her occupation of the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the defendants are lawfully entitled to act as directors and officials of Miaraho Company Ltd.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to protection of her rights as a widow and shareholder of the company.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff, as a widow of a founder member and a shareholder, had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The court held that the defendants' actions in seeking to evict her and in holding themselves out as directors without proper notification or process could cause irreparable harm to her rights. The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises and from purporting to act as directors or officials of Miaraho Company Ltd until the main suit is heard and determined.
Court Disposition
injunction granted
Orders
- An injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful occupation of the suit premises.
- The defendants are restrained from performing any act or function in the name of Miaraho Ltd and from holding themselves as directors, officials, or shareholders of Miaraho Ltd.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 716 OF 2005
NYAMBURA MWANGI …………………...........………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STEPHEN MAINA KIMANGA ………………....………… 1ST DEFENDANT
MUTURI KANYI …………………………...………………. 2ND DEFENDANT
PETER MWANGI MACHARIA ……..…….……………… 3RD DEFENDANT
GITHINJI MWANGI ………………………………………. 4TH DEFENDANT
GICHUHI MACHARIA …………………….…………….. 5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1 BACKGROUND OF APPLICATION DATED 31. 5.07 FOR AN INJUNCTION
1. The plaintiff herein Nyambura Mwangi was married to one Mwangi Githinji (now deceased) who was a founder member of M/s Miaraho Company Ltd.
2. She lived on land parcel LR 4927 that appears to be her matrimonial home. All three founder members have since passed away. It seems as if new directors were appointed without notifying her. They threatened to evict her from the land.
3. The plaintiff herein filed this suit seeking injunction orders against the defendants 1 – 5 in their personal capacity. A declaration that she is entitled to a share of the company and that an election held on 31 May 05 be deemed null and void.
4. The suit dated 10 June 05 and filed on 13 July 05 was filed together with an application for injunction. It seems that Ransely J gave interim orders for that injunction on 19 July 2005 but inter parties hearing was even heard. Other judges extended these orders for injunction.
II: Application of 31 May 05
5. The plaintiff seeks protection of this court from being evicted from her suit premises. She seeks orders that this court gives certain declaratory orders against the company.
III In reply
In reply the defendants state they are now the lawful directors. That sometime in 1998 the plaintiff – a widow of the original founder had attempted to interfer with the running of the company and attempted to wind the company up.
7. Should an injunction issue?
IV Finding
8. It is imperative that the company conducts its affairs according to law. If the defendants are interfering with the right of the shareholders that touch upon them unfairly. I find that this is a fit case to grant an injunction.
9. I find that an injunction do and is hereby granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff peaceful occupation. That the defendants be restrained from an order of injunction from doing any act of performing any function in the name of Miaraho Ltd and from holding themselves as directors, officials, shareholder of Miaraho Ltd and from holding election and meeting that purports or meeting that are proposed to be company meeting pending the hearing of the main suit.
Dated this 24th day of May 2004 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
P.K. Njoroge for the P.K. Njoroge & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
S.O. Makori for Oraro & Co. Advocates for the defendant.