[2024] KEHC 15485 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The statutory provision cited (Section 51 of Cap 152) does not exist, undermining the legal basis for the application. Furthermore, the applicant and respondent were never married, and the applicant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15485 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ronny Ouma Opiyo; Respondent: Ivon Akoth Hagar
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Migori
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Case E004 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application and petition dismissed
- Judges
- A Ong’injo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Matrimonial Disputes, Wedding Interference
- 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
Ronny Ouma Opiyo
Applicant
Ivon Akoth Hagar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his intended wedding.
- 2 Whether Section 51 of Cap 152 of the Matrimonial Property Act provides a legal basis for the application.
- 3 Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for the grant of injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The statutory provision cited (Section 51 of Cap 152) does not exist, undermining the legal basis for the application. Furthermore, the applicant and respondent were never married, and the applicant did not provide evidence of any planned wedding or credible threat from the respondent. The court held that injunctive orders cannot be issued for undefined threats without a clear factual foundation. Consequently, both the application and the petition were dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application and petition dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 1.7.2024 is dismissed.
- The petition dated 1.7.2024 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Opiyo v Hagar (Miscellaneous Case E004 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15485 (KLR) (28 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15485 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Migori
Miscellaneous Case E004 of 2024
A Ong’injo, J
November 28, 2024
Between
Ronny Ouma Opiyo
Petitioner
and
Ivon Akoth Hagar
Respondent
Ruling
1. Vide Notice of Motion application dated 1. 7.2024 brought under certificate of urgency the Applicant herein Ronny Ouma Opiyo sought an order of temporary injunction to restrain the Respondent by herself, her agents and / or those claiming through her, servant or otherwise howsoever from interfering with the intended wedding of the Petitioners herein pending the hearing of the Application and Petition herein.
2. The application was brought pursuant to Section 51 Cap 152 of the Matrimonial Property Act and all enabling provisions of the law. The application was supported by the grounds on its face and supporting affidavit sworn by the Applicant on 1st July 2024 to the effect that the Applicant had been in a relationship with the Respondent that resulted into one issue namely B. T. aged 2 years.
3. The Applicant averred that the Respondent turned violent to him and made their relationship to break down irretrievably and as a result the Applicant entered into another relationship and intended to conduct a wedding in the near future.
4. That the Respondent had threatened to storm the said wedding and interfere with his plans and that is why he had brought the application herein as he is apprehensive if the Respondent is not stopped.
5. The Notice of Motion was filed concurrently with Petition dated 1. 7. 2024. The Respondent was served but she did not enter appearance.
6. The Application and Petition were heard by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed submissions dated 29th October, 2024
7. Section 51 under which the Applicant brough the application and petition herein does not exist. The Matrimonial Property Act Revised Edition 2022 contains upto Section 19 and it is not clear where the Applicant got Section 51 of the Cap 152 Laws of Kenya.
8. Secondly, the Applicant and the Respondent were never married and his fear / apprehension that the Respondent intended to storm the venue of his wedding is unfounded.
9. The Applicant did not also show that indeed he had planned for any wedding that could have been subject to alleged threats by the Respondent.
10. This court cannot give injunctive orders that have no time limit for undefined threats.
11. In the circumstances the Application herein and Petition dated 1. 7.2024 are unfounded and do not meet the threshold of prima facie case to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction. The Application and petition are dismissed with no orders to costs.
DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED AT MIGORI THIS 28THDAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. ……………………………..A. ONG’INJOJUDGEIn the presence of:Victor / Lola Court AssistantMs. Ogwe & Associates Advocates – No appearanceApplicant No appearanceRespondent – No appearanceOrder: Ruling delivered Notice to issue.