[2022] KEHC 9984 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 9984 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated compelling circumstances warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in their favour. The evidence showed that the 1st defendant had interfered with the 2nd plaintiff company's bank accounts, which could disrupt the company's operations and cause irreparable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 9984 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Himesh Rajeni Patel; Plaintiff: RM Estates Limited; Defendant: Rajiv Ramesh Patel; Defendant: I&M Bank Limited; Defendant: Bank of Baroda Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E006 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application allowed in terms of prayers 3, 4, and 5; interlocutory injunctions granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
RN Nyakundi
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Company Bank Accounts, Directors Powers, Shareholder Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Banking and Finance Interlocutory Injunctions Company Bank Accounts Directors Powers Shareholder 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Himesh Rajeni Patel

Plaintiff

RM Estates Limited

Plaintiff

Rajiv Ramesh Patel

Defendant

I&M Bank Limited

Defendant

Bank of Baroda Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendants from interfering with the 2nd plaintiff's bank accounts pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants should be compelled to allow access and operation of the 2nd plaintiff's bank accounts as per the company's mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had demonstrated compelling circumstances warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in their favour. The evidence showed that the 1st defendant had interfered with the 2nd plaintiff company's bank accounts, which could disrupt the company's operations and cause irreparable harm. The court was satisfied that the applicants had met the threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain the defendants from further interference and to compel the banks to allow access and operation of the accounts as per the company's Memorandum and Articles of Association. The court relied on established principles governing the grant of interlocutory...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in terms of prayers 3, 4, and 5; interlocutory injunctions granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • An order of injunction is issued restraining all defendants from interfering with the daily operations and access to the 2nd plaintiff company's bank accounts at I&M Bank Limited and Bank of Baroda Limited pending determination of the suit.
  • An order is issued directing I&M Bank Limited and Bank of Baroda Limited, their servants, agents, or employees, particularly their respective Branch Managers at Eldoret, to allow access and normal business transactions on the 2nd plaintiff company's bank accounts as per the company's Memorandum and Articles of...