[2014] KEHC 7148 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 7148 (KLR)

The court found that although a previous suit (HCCC No. 266 of 2011) and injunction orders exist between the parties regarding the same subject matter, the issuance of a fresh notice to vacate by the defendant justified the plaintiffs' filing of a new suit and application for injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable loss not easily compensable by damages, and the balance of convenience favoured them. The court also noted that the issue of whether the defendant is the same legal entity as in the previous suit and the applicability of the res subjudice rule would be properly addressed at the hearing of the consolidated...

Citation
[2014] KEHC 7148 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rumba Kinuthia T/A Rumba Kinuthia & Co. Advocates, Joseph Karanja Wamugi T/A Barlany Services & Bonus Travel, Joseph Oloo Kenyagah T/A Millenium Insurance Brokers (on their behalf and on behalf of 16 others); Defendant: Nairobi City County
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
11 February 2014
Case Number
Civil Case 200 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
DA Onyancha
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Eviction Proceedings, Res Subjudice, Contempt of Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Eviction Proceedings Res Subjudice Contempt of Court Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rumba Kinuthia T/A Rumba Kinuthia & Co. Advocates, Joseph Karanja Wamugi T/A Barlany Services & Bonus Travel, Joseph Oloo Kenyagah T/A Millenium Insurance Brokers (on their behalf and on behalf of 16 others)

Plaintiff

Nairobi City County

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with their occupation of the offices pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is res subjudice in light of the existence of HCCC No. 266 of 2011 between the same or similar parties and subject matter.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's issuance of fresh eviction notices was in contempt or violation of existing court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although a previous suit (HCCC No. 266 of 2011) and injunction orders exist between the parties regarding the same subject matter, the issuance of a fresh notice to vacate by the defendant justified the plaintiffs' filing of a new suit and application for injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable loss not easily compensable by damages, and the balance of convenience favoured them. The court also noted that the issue of whether the defendant is the same legal entity as in the previous suit and the applicability of the res subjudice rule would be properly addressed at the hearing of the consolidated...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted restraining the defendant, its agents and servants from evicting or interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation of their respective offices within City Hall Annex pending final determination of the suit.
  • The two suits (this suit and HCCC No. 266 of 2011) shall be consolidated and prosecuted within nine months, failing which the injunction orders herein and in the other suit shall automatically stand lifted and discharged.