[2011] KEHC 4011 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 4011 (KLR)

The court found that the Applicant's claim to have been issued with a certificate of change of name on 2nd December 2009 was questionable, given contradictory correspondence indicating that as of 23rd August 2010, the certificate had not been issued. The court also noted that the property in question was subject to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 4011 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zara Properties Limited (formerly Prompt Fire Protection Limited [C. 106174]); Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General; Defendant: Zara Properties Limited (CPR/2010/24490 of 5th June 2010)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 700 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CN Mugo
Legal Topics
Company Name Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Land Title Registration, Corporate Identity, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Company Name Disputes Injunctive Relief Land Title Registration Corporate Identity Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zara Properties Limited (formerly Prompt Fire Protection Limited [C. 106174])

Plaintiff

The Honourable Attorney General

Defendant

Zara Properties Limited (CPR/2010/24490 of 5th June 2010)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Respondent wrongfully acquired and used the name 'Zara Properties Limited' in contravention of the Applicant's prior rights.
  2. 2 Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the 2nd Respondent from using the disputed name and dealing with the Applicant's immovable property.
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure and abuse of court process by the Applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicant's claim to have been issued with a certificate of change of name on 2nd December 2009 was questionable, given contradictory correspondence indicating that as of 23rd August 2010, the certificate had not been issued. The court also noted that the property in question was subject to criminal investigations and that the Attorney General had not been served with the application or hearing notice. The absence of summons to enter appearance and the lack of service on the Respondents amounted to material non-disclosure. The court concluded that the application was a gross abuse of the process of the court and dismissed it, finding no basis to grant the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • This ruling to be served upon the Attorney General, the Registrar of Companies and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Lands.