[2018] KEELC 2754 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 2754 (KLR)

The court found that the application for an interlocutory injunction was unopposed as the defendant failed to file a replying affidavit. The plaintiff's evidence was therefore unchallenged, and the court was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established. The court applied the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, confirming that the applicant had surmounted the first hurdle for an injunction. However, the court declined to cite the defendant for contempt because the status quo order made on 10th March 2016 was not sufficiently defined, making it impossible to ascertain whether there had been a breach. The court thus granted the injunction...

Citation
[2018] KEELC 2754 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Mungai Kamau; Defendant: Esther Muthoni Gitahi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 301 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Contempt)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; contempt application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Contempt of Court, Prima Facie Case, Preservation of Property
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Status Quo Orders Contempt of Court Prima Facie Case Preservation of Property

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Mungai Kamau

Plaintiff

Esther Muthoni Gitahi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application (ruling on Notice of Motion for Injunction and Contempt)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit properties.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be cited for contempt of court orders issued on 10th March 2016.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the application should be awarded to the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for an interlocutory injunction was unopposed as the defendant failed to file a replying affidavit. The plaintiff's evidence was therefore unchallenged, and the court was satisfied that a prima facie case had been established. The court applied the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown and Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen, confirming that the applicant had surmounted the first hurdle for an injunction. However, the court declined to cite the defendant for contempt because the status quo order made on 10th March 2016 was not sufficiently defined, making it impossible to ascertain whether there had been a breach. The court thus granted the injunction...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; contempt application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • An injunction is granted restraining the defendant, her agents or servants from building, constructing, alienating, selling, disposing or in any other manner dealing with Plot Nos. 495 and 496 situated within Industrial Area in Naivasha town pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
  • Prayer for contempt of court is dismissed.