[2007] KEHC 1349 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 1349 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as there was no credible evidence that the applicant had interfered with the respondent's metering devices or was guilty of material non-disclosure. The respondent's own correspondence did not accuse the applicant of tampering, and the respondent failed to provide timely explanations or take action consistent with its allegations. The applicant demonstrated that disconnection of electricity would cause grave and potentially irreparable harm to its business operations, including loss of production and staff layoffs, which may not be adequately compensated by damages. The court held that the...

Citation
[2007] KEHC 1349 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Wax & Polypack Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Case Number
Civil Suit 107 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction (chamber Summons)
Outcome
Application allowed. Mandatory injunction granted.
Judges
AM Cockar, CJ Kendagor
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Electricity Supply Contracts, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm, Mandatory Injunctions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interlocutory Injunctions Electricity Supply Contracts Prima Facie Case Irreparable Harm Mandatory Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wax & Polypack Ltd

Applicant

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application for Injunction (chamber Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from disconnecting its electricity supply pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss not compensatable by damages if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, as there was no credible evidence that the applicant had interfered with the respondent's metering devices or was guilty of material non-disclosure. The respondent's own correspondence did not accuse the applicant of tampering, and the respondent failed to provide timely explanations or take action consistent with its allegations. The applicant demonstrated that disconnection of electricity would cause grave and potentially irreparable harm to its business operations, including loss of production and staff layoffs, which may not be adequately compensated by damages. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Mandatory injunction granted.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondent, its agents, servants, employees, or any other person or entity from interfering with or disconnecting the applicant's power supply pending the hearing of the suit.
  • The respondent is compelled to supply accounts appearing in account number 530688/2.