[2016] KEHC 1174 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing defamatory statements pending the hearing of the main motion. The court noted that both parties are engaged in the business of selling speed governors and that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 1174 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Saferider Management Systems Ltd; Defendant: Saferider Vehicle Technologies (PTY) Ltd; Defendant: Leon Du Plessis
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 194 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- Interim injunction granted.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Interim Injunctions, Business Reputation, Commercial Disputes
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Saferider Management Systems Ltd
Plaintiff
Saferider Vehicle Technologies (PTY) Ltd
Defendant
Leon Du Plessis
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing defamatory statements against it pending the hearing of the main motion.
- 2 Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm justify the grant of the interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing defamatory statements pending the hearing of the main motion. The court noted that both parties are engaged in the business of selling speed governors and that the allegations of trading in counterfeits and defamation could not be resolved at this interlocutory stage. The court was satisfied that the risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business reputation and client confidence justified the reissuance of the interim injunction. The order was granted to last until the scheduled inter partes hearing of the substantive motion, with...
Court Disposition
Interim injunction granted.
Orders
- An interim order of injunction is reissued restraining the defendants from publishing or causing the publication of defamatory allegations against the plaintiff until 22nd November 2016.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 194 OF 2016
SAFERIDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LTD..............................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
-V E R S U S –
SAFERIDER VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (PTY) LTD....1ST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
LEON DU PLESSIS........................................................2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
RULING
1. On 26th July 2016, this court issued an exparte order of injunction to restrain Safe Rider Vehicle technologies (PTY) Ltd and Leon DU Plessis, the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents herein, from publishing or causing the publication of defamatory and the damaging allegations against Saferider Management Systems Ltd, the plaintiff/applicant herein. The exparte interim order was issued pursuant to the motion dated 22nd July 2016 taken out by the plaintiff/applicant. The aforesaid order was extended on various occasions but the same lapsed on 6th October 2016 when the duty judge failed to extend the same. This prompted the plaintiff/applicant to take out the motion dated 10. 10. 2016 seeking for issuance of the interim order of injunction.
2. When this matter came up for mention before this court on 18th October 2016, Mr. Wathuta learned advocate for the plaintiff/applicant beseeched this court to grant an interim order of injunction to last upto 22nd November 2016 when the motion dated 22nd July 2016 is fixed for interpartes hearing. The learned advocate stated that unless the order is granted the plaintiff’s business will be at the risk of being exposed to continued circulation of false and malicious allegations to its clients with threats by the respondents to further publish similar or worse allegations to the general public through the media in furtherance of malicious and unlawful blackmail.
3. Mr. Mwangi learned advocate for the defendants/respondents strenuously opposed the application of issuance of a blanket order of interim order for injunction. The learned advocate pointed out that if this court is inclined to grant the order then it should guard against issuing orders which will impact negatively on his client’s business. It is not in dispute that when the motion dated 22nd July 2016 was placed before this court on 26. 7.2016, this court found that it was appropriate to grant exparte interim order of injunction upon considering the material placed before it. The main ground raised by the plaintiff/applicant was that the 1st defendant/respondent through the 2nd defendant/respondent has embarked on an elaborate scheme to scandalise the plaintiff/applicant’s business by maliciously spreading false information to the applicant’s clients to the effect that the goods supplied by the applicant are counterfeits. It is argued that the information may cause irreparable loss of confidence by the applicant’s clients and damage to its reputation. In response to the above allegations, the defendants/respondents vide the replying affidavit of Leon Du Plessis averred that the plaintiff was their customer and distributor in Kenya for speed governors and recorders from 2014 until mid-this year when it terminated the business relationship with the plaintiff/applicant because the plaintiff had started trading in counterfeits which resemble the respondents’ speed governors. From the allegations and counter- allegations traded by the parties, it is apparent that the plaintiff and the defendants have had a business relationship which has gone sour. The defendants do not deny that they have alleged that the plaintiff trades on counterfeit speed governors which are near similar to those the defendants trade on. The veracity of the allegations cannot be established at the early stages of this dispute. There is no doubt that the protagonists are in the business of selling speed governors among other items. I am convinced that the interim order as sought in prayer 2 of the motion dated 22. 07. 2016 should be reissued which I hereby grant to last upto 22. 11. 2016. This will protect the plaintiff’s business from being destroyed by the negative media reports until the foresaid motion is heard and determined.
4. The order is not meant to hinder any of the parties from operating its business. This being an interim order, costs shall await the outcome of the motion dated 22. 7.2016.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 19th day of October 2016.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.................................................... for the Appellant
................................................ for the Respondent