https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10777

Stand By Me & another v Yator & another (Civil Case E012 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10777 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10777 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Civil Case E012 of 2026 AK Ndung'u, J July 17, 2026 Between Stand By Me 1st Plaintiff Stand By Me Kenya 2nd Plaintiff and Silas Yator 1st Respondent Cyprian Mabonga 2nd Respondent Ruling 1.Before is the Notice of Motion dated 7th July 2026, brought under certificate of urgency. The application seeks interim reliefs restraining the Respondents from interfering with the governance, management and operations of the 2nd Applicant pending the hearing of the applications and the suit. 2.The application is premised upon the grounds that the 2nd Applicant has experienced prolonged governance challenges; that the Public Benefits Organizations Authority directed it to regularize its governance structures; that the Respondents have purportedly undertaken unilateral actions including interference with the office of the Executive Director and the appointment of another Executive Director contrary to the governing constitutional documents; and that unless the Court intervenes urgently, the operations of the children's home and school accommodating approximately 330 children stand to be gravely disrupted. It is supported by the affidavit of Benedict A. Omollo. 3.Having considered the pleadings, affidavits and annexures placed before Court, I am satisfied that what is before me is an application for interlocutory relief presented ex parte. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to determine the merits of the parties' rival claims. Those issues shall properly be determined after the Respondents have been afforded an opportunity to be heard. 4.The applicable principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions are well settled. In Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, the Court held that an applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, demonstrate that irreparable injury incapable of adequate compensation by damages would result if the injunction is refused, and where the Court is in doubt, determine the application on a balance of convenience. 5.The meaning of a prima facie case was explained by the Court of Appeal in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] KLR 125, where Bosire JA stated:“A prima facie case in a civil application includes but is not confined to a genuine and arguable case. It is a case which, on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal properly directing itself would conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal." 6.The Court is also guided by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, where it emphasized that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the dispute. 7.At the ex parte stage, the Court exercises even greater caution. Ex parte orders are exceptional because they affect parties who have not yet been heard. Consequently, such orders ought only to be granted where there exists real urgency and where the subject matter is likely to be defeated before the opposite party can be heard. This principle was underscored in Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 Others [1995] eKLR, where the Court stressed that ex parte injunctions should be granted only in cases of real urgency and for the shortest duration necessary to enable an inter partes hearing. 8.From the material presently before Court, there appears to exist a serious dispute concerning the governance and management of the 2nd Applicant. The allegations of interference with bank mandates, management of the institution and the office of the Executive Director raise issues that cannot properly be resolved without hearing both sides. Nevertheless, it is equally evident that the institution operates a children's home and school caring for approximately 330 children. The welfare of those children must remain paramount and ought not to become a casualty of the governance dispute. 9.The Court is persuaded that unless interim preservatory orders are granted, there exists a real possibility of disruption of the operations of the children's home and school, to the prejudice of innocent beneficiaries who are not parties to this dispute. The balance of convenience therefore tilts overwhelmingly in favour of preserving the prevailing operational status quo pending an inter partes hearing. 10.In exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and bearing in mind the overriding objective of facilitating the just, expeditious and proportionate determination of disputes, this Court considers it just and appropriate to grant limited preservatory orders solely to maintain the status quo until the Respondents are heard. 11.These orders so granted are purely preservatory in nature. They shall not be construed as determining the rights of the parties or expressing any final view on the merits of the dispute, which shall be determined after all parties have been heard. 12.Accordingly, I make the following interim orders:a.Pending the inter partes hearing of the application, a temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves, their servants, agents or any person acting under their authority, from interfering with the day-to-day operations, administration and management of the 2nd Applicant, including interference with its premises, staff, Executive Director, bank accounts and assets.b.The prevailing management and operational arrangements existing immediately prior to the filing of this application shall remain in force pending further orders of the Court.c.The Executive Director shall continue overseeing the ordinary operations of the children's home and school strictly in accordance with the Constitution of the 2nd Applicant and the applicable law, without prejudice to the rights of either party.d.The Respondents shall cooperate and surrender any documents, mandates or equipment as is necessary in the running of the institution forthwith.Orders accordingly. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026A. K. NDUNG’UJUDGE