Yator & another v Stand by Me Kenya & 2 others (Civil Case E013 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10687 (KLR) (17 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET** **CIVIL CASE NO. E013 OF 2026** **SILAS YATOR …………………………..…… 1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **CYPRIAN MABONGA …………..…………. 2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **=VERSUS=** **STAND BY ME KENYA ………………………..………….. 1ST DEFENDANT** **BENEDICT OMOLLO ……………………………………… 2ND DEFENDANT** **LINDA NDETHIU ………………………………………….. 3RD DEFENDANT** **RULING** 1. Before the Court for consideration at this interlocutory stage is the Applicants' Notice of Motion dated even date seeking, principally, conservatory and injunctive orders restraining the Respondents from interfering with the governance, management and operations of the 2nd Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the application and the suit. The application is supported by the affidavit of Benedict A. Omollo sworn on behalf of the Applicants. 2. The Court has considered the application, the grounds upon which it is premised, and the supporting affidavit. The orders sought are extensive and, if granted, would have the effect of restoring the Applicants or persons claiming under them to positions of control over the affairs of the 2nd Applicant and restraining the Respondents from exercising authority over the institution pending the hearing of the suit. 3. The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the subject matter of litigation pending the determination of the dispute. As was stated in *Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd* [1973] EA 358 and further explained in *Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others* [2014] eKLR, an interlocutory injunction is intended to preserve the prevailing state of affairs and should not ordinarily be used to determine contested rights or to grant final relief before trial. 4. From the material presently before the Court, it is not disputed that the Applicants have already ceased to hold office as members of the Board of the 2nd Applicant. The removal or cessation of their tenure has already occurred. The interim orders sought would therefore not merely preserve the existing position but would substantially alter it by effectively restoring the Applicants to control or influence over the governance and administration of the institution before the Court has had the benefit of hearing the parties on the merits. 5. Such orders would amount, in substance, to granting mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage. The law is settled that mandatory injunctions before trial are granted only in the clearest of cases and in exceptional circumstances. (See *Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro-Export & Another* [1986] 1 All ER 901 and *Kenya Breweries Ltd & Another v Washington O. Okeyo* [2002] 1 EA 109). This is not one of those clear cases. 6. The Court is also alive to the nature of the 2nd Applicant, which manages a children's home and a school. The paramount consideration at this stage is to ensure continuity in the administration and operation of those institutions. Frequent changes in management or uncertainty regarding authority over the institution, its staff, finances and operations would not serve the interests of the children, the staff or other stakeholders. It is therefore in the interests of justice that the institution continues to operate under the current management pending the determination of the substantive dispute. 7. The Court is not persuaded that declining the interim orders will occasion prejudice incapable of being remedied after a full hearing. The issues raised by the Applicants concerning the legality of their removal, governance of the Board, compliance with the Constitution of the 2nd Applicant and the Chartering Agreement, and the validity of subsequent decisions are matters that require interrogation through evidence. Should the Applicants ultimately succeed, the Court will be in a position to grant appropriate declaratory and consequential relief. 8. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience favours maintaining operational stability within the children's home and school while preserving the parties' respective legal positions for determination after an inter partes hearing. The Court therefore declines to issue the interim injunctive and mandatory orders sought. 9. To ensure that the Applicants are not prejudiced by the refusal of interim relief, this matter shall be heard on a priority basis. The parties shall immediately comply with all pre-trial requirements, and the Deputy Registrar shall allocate the earliest available date for the hearing of both the application and the suit. **Orders** Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: 1. ***The interim orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 7th July 2026 are declined.*** 2. ***The current management and operations of the children's home and school shall continue uninterrupted pending the hearing and determination of the application and the suit.*** 3. ***The Deputy Registrar shall list this matter for priority hearing on the earliest available date.*** 4. ***Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the suit.*** It is so ordered. **DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY 2026** **** **A.K. NDUNG’U** **JUDGE**