[2012] KEHC 3890 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 3890 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants were not denied a hearing, as both parties made submissions on the Preliminary Objection and the Chamber Summons, and the court proceeded on the impression that all issues were being addressed. There was no error on the face of the record, and the orders issued were reasoned and supported by law. The court held that, while it has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6, such jurisdiction does not extend to non-executable injunctive orders as per binding Court of Appeal authority. The applicants did not pursue the appropriate procedure to set aside or vary the injunction under Order 40 Rule 7. Furthermore, the arbitration process...

Citation
[2012] KEHC 3890 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: S.G.S. Societies Generale de Surveillance S.A. Kenya Ltd.; Applicant: S.G.S. Kenya Limited; Respondent: Tracer Limited; Respondent: Peter Nanyumbah Echessah; Respondent: Automated Logistics Kenya Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Case Number
Civil Case 54 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Injunctive Orders, Arbitration Referral, Jurisdictional Objection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Execution Injunctive Orders Arbitration Referral Jurisdictional Objection

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.G.S. Societies Generale de Surveillance S.A. Kenya Ltd.

Applicant

S.G.S. Kenya Limited

Applicant

Tracer Limited

Respondent

Peter Nanyumbah Echessah

Respondent

Automated Logistics Kenya Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of injunctive orders pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error on the face of the record in the issuance of the injunctive orders.
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of an injunction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not denied a hearing, as both parties made submissions on the Preliminary Objection and the Chamber Summons, and the court proceeded on the impression that all issues were being addressed. There was no error on the face of the record, and the orders issued were reasoned and supported by law. The court held that, while it has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6, such jurisdiction does not extend to non-executable injunctive orders as per binding Court of Appeal authority. The applicants did not pursue the appropriate procedure to set aside or vary the injunction under Order 40 Rule 7. Furthermore, the arbitration process...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 22nd March 2012 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.
  • No stay of execution of the injunctive orders issued on 16th March 2012 is granted.