[2014] KEHC 3739 (KLR)
The court found no objection to reinstating the dismissed application and ordered its reinstatement, subject to payment of previously awarded costs. On the issue of interlocutory injunction, the court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements set out in Giella v Cassman Brown Ltd., particularly the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 3739 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Omacho Masinde; Respondent: Catherine Njambi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 270 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement and Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for reinstatement allowed; interlocutory injunction not granted; status quo to be maintained subject to payment of costs.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Reinstatement of Application
- 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
Reuben Omacho Masinde
Applicant
Catherine Njambi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Application for Reinstatement and Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissed application dated 17/9/2013 should be reinstated.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant.
- 3 Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no objection to reinstating the dismissed application and ordered its reinstatement, subject to payment of previously awarded costs. On the issue of interlocutory injunction, the court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements set out in Giella v Cassman Brown Ltd., particularly the demonstration of irreparable loss. However, considering the parties' agreement not to evict each other and the need to preserve the status quo, the court ordered that the status quo as at the date of filing suit be maintained until the hearing and determination of the suit, with the maintenance of the order conditional upon the plaintiff paying the defendant the awarded costs...
Court Disposition
Application for reinstatement allowed; interlocutory injunction not granted; status quo to be maintained subject to payment of costs.
Orders
- The application dated 17/9/2013 is reinstated.
- The plaintiff shall pay the defendant Kshs.600/= costs within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
LAND AND ENVIRONMENT CASE NO. 270 OF 2013
REUBEN OMACHO MASINDE ………...PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
CATHERINE NJAMBI ……….…… DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
On 19th September 2013, the plaintiff filed an application dated 17/9/2013 for restraining orders. It was filed under certificate of urgency. The court ordered that the same be served for inter-partes hearing. Thereafter, the registry fixed it for hearing on 26/11/13.
On that 26/11/2013, the plaintiff did not attend court. The defendant was in court. The application was therefore dismissed for non attendance, and the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant costs of 600/=.
On 6/12/2013, the plaintiff filed another application seeking restraining orders as well as reinstatement of the dismissed application. This later application was fixed for hearing on 25/2/14. On that hearing date, the arguments tendered by the parties covered both applications.
Having considered the position taken on both sides, I find that there is no objection to the request for reinstating the dismissed application dated 17/9/2013. The same is hereby reinstated. The plaintiff will however pay the defendant the costs of 600/= earlier awarded by the court.
With regard to the reinstated application dated 17/9/2013, the parties herein agree that none of them want to evict the other. The plaintiff has also not satisfied the parameters for grant of interlocutory injunctions as enunciated in the case of GIELLA –VS- CASSMAN BROWN LTD. [1973] EA 358. He has not demonstrated especially, that he will suffer irreparable loss if the orders sought are not granted.
The above notwithstanding, since the parties know the status quo as at the time this present suit was filed, I am of the view that it serves the interest of justice that status quo should continue to prevail upto the hearing of the suit. I find no reason to disturb the same.
Consequently, I order in the interests of justice that the status quo subsisting as at 19/9/13 when this suit was filed be maintained till hearing and determination of the suit. If however, the plaintiff will not have paid to the defendant the Kshs.600/= costs awarded above within 30 days from today, the orders of maintenance of status quo herein granted will automatically lapse. No order as to costs.
Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 5th day of June, 2014
George Dulu
J U D G E