[2015] KEHC 898 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 898 (KLR)

The court found that both parties had been granted advertising rights by the Nakuru County Government, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff's rights had been terminated. The defendant's permit did not authorize removal or interference with the plaintiff's advertisements. The County Government, as the grantor of the rights, was not a party to the proceedings and had not clarified the status of the plaintiff's approvals. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, that there was a real danger of irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court...

Citation
[2015] KEHC 898 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Pinnacle Communications Ltd; Defendant: Menengai Oil Refineries
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Case Number
Civil Case 89 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction granted.
Judges
JK Mulwa
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Advertising Rights, Double Allocation, Contractual Compliance, Damages, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Advertising Rights Double Allocation Contractual Compliance Damages Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pinnacle Communications Ltd

Plaintiff

Menengai Oil Refineries

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its advertisements on street poles along Nakuru-Eldoret Highway pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties had been granted advertising rights by the Nakuru County Government, and there was no evidence that the plaintiff's rights had been terminated. The defendant's permit did not authorize removal or interference with the plaintiff's advertisements. The County Government, as the grantor of the rights, was not a party to the proceedings and had not clarified the status of the plaintiff's approvals. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, that there was a real danger of irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • An order of injunction is issued restraining the defendant, its directors, agents, servants, workers or any other persons acting under it from removing, dealing, destroying or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiff's advertisements mounted on street poles along the Nakuru-Eldoret Highway pending hearing...
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.