[2012] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction. The subject matter of the dispute, LR 72/233, was under imminent threat due to ongoing construction by the respondent. To preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending the inter partes...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1887 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter O. Ngoge t/a O.P. Ngoge & Associates; Respondent: Ammu Investment Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 745 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted for 14 days pending inter partes hearing.
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Land Disputes, Interlocutory Orders
- 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
Peter O. Ngoge t/a O.P. Ngoge & Associates
Applicant
Ammu Investment Co. Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the respondent from constructing on LR 72/233 pending inter partes hearing.
- 2 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction under Order 40 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction. The subject matter of the dispute, LR 72/233, was under imminent threat due to ongoing construction by the respondent. To preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending the inter partes hearing, the court exercised its discretion under Order 40 rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to issue an injunctive order restraining the respondent from further construction for a period of 14 days. The court noted that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo until the parties could be heard inter partes.
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted for 14 days pending inter partes hearing.
Orders
- An injunctive order is issued restraining the respondent from further construction on LR 72/233 for 14 days.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Editorial Summary
1. Court Vacation
2. Civil case
3. Application for temporary injunction.
4. Subject of main suit
LAND LR 72/233
4. 1 That construction be stopped pendhearing of Notice of Motion of13th August2012
5. Held:Injunction to issue for 14 days.
6. Case Law:
7. Advocates:
i) J.K. Jakaiwa holding brief for C.B. Mwongela instructed byM/s C.B. Mwongela & Co Advocates for plaintiff
ii) T. Mugambi holding brief for Otieno Ombati instructed byM/s Ombati Otieno & Co Advocates for respondent
PETER O. NGOGE T/A O.P. NGOGE & ASSOCIATES ……….....………..….… APPLICANT
VERSUS
AMMU INVESTMENT CO. LT ……..............………...........…..............… RESPONDENT/CLIENT
R U L I N G
IINTRODUCTION
1. The applicants 1 – 6 have filed suit seeking orders that an injunction do issue restraining the defendants from constructing on block 72/233 Ngei Phase II Estate Langata.
2. Upon hearing the parties on the issue as to whether a temporary injunction should issue or not. And upon giving the date of
29th August 2012 for interparte hearing. I hereby find that the injunctive order do issue against the defendants from further constructing for 14 days under Order 40 r 4(2) Civil Procedure Rules and upon the interparte hearing of this matter.
3. The costs be in the cause.
DATED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 AT NAIROBI
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
i) J.K. Jakaiwa holding brief for C.B. Mwongela instructed byM/s C.B. Mwongela & Co Advocates for plaintiff
ii) T. Mugambi holding brief for Otieno Ombati instructed byM/s Ombati Otieno & Co Advocates for respondent