[2014] KEHC 5862 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 5862 (KLR)

The court found that the applications for interlocutory injunction did not meet the established standards set out in Geilla v Cassman Brown. The previous temporary injunction had lapsed after 14 days, and the subsequent application, filed nearly two years later, did not present sufficient grounds or new...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 5862 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sofia Abdalla Salim; Defendant: Biasha Athumani; Defendant: Musa Athumani; Defendant: Arafa Athumani
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 111 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Applications
Outcome
applications dismissed
Judges
SN Mukunya
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Standards for Injunctions, Lapse of Temporary Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interlocutory Injunctions Standards for Injunctions Lapse of Temporary Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofia Abdalla Salim

Plaintiff

Biasha Athumani

Defendant

Musa Athumani

Defendant

Arafa Athumani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Applications

  1. 1 Whether the applications for interlocutory injunction met the legal threshold for grant of such orders.
  2. 2 Whether the lapse of the previous temporary injunction affected the current applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applications for interlocutory injunction did not meet the established standards set out in Geilla v Cassman Brown. The previous temporary injunction had lapsed after 14 days, and the subsequent application, filed nearly two years later, did not present sufficient grounds or new circumstances to warrant the grant of similar orders. The court was not satisfied that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case or that the balance of convenience favored them. Consequently, both applications were dismissed.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications for interlocutory injunction are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.