Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Law Society of Kenya [1988] KECA 81 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot get an injunction in a case that hasn't actually been filed as a proper suit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction in absence of a plaint
The High Court had no jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction where no plaint had been filed; the mode of commencing civil suits is mandatory and an interim remedy can only ride on a competent suit.
Order 6 rule 1 provides in mandatory terms that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint. Order 39 refers expressly to a suit. The proper remedy for the appellant was to sue for a perpetual injunction and seek interim relief pending that suit. The legislature having prescribed the mode of commencement, inherent powers under section 3A cannot be used to sanction any other method, and the law is the same for lawyers and laymen alike.
Refusal to review the ruling of November 22, 1983 and the order of costs
The judge was right to refuse review; the original ruling being correct, there was nothing to review, and costs properly followed the event as the Society was obliged to defend an incompetent application.
The appellant's real object was to rid himself of the costs order, not to obtain any fresh relief, since he had already obtained his injunction after filing a plaint. The Society succeeded in showing the interim remedy sought did not lie, and costs normally follow the event. The judge also awarded further costs of the review day because the defendants had been brought to court for nothing.
Refusal to grant an adjournment to file a plaint
The refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of judicial discretion; no reasonable judge would have granted an adjournment on these facts.
Adjournment is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised judicially on the facts of each case. The appellant had not set on foot a competent action, the jurisdictional objection was substantial rather than trivial, and there was no reason why the Society should have an application with no substratum remain hanging on its neck.
Scope of section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Section 3A does not confer power on the court to act without jurisdiction and cannot be invoked to bypass the prescribed mode of commencing suits.
Kwach Ag JA, concurring, noted that a suit is defined in section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act as civil proceedings commenced in the manner prescribed by the Rules, that order 39 relief requires a suit, and that section 3A, which he described as grossly abused, gives the court no power to act without jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A temporary injunction under order 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules can only be sought in an existing suit; a competent action must be commenced by plaint before interim relief can be granted.
- The inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be used to sanction a method of commencing a suit other than that prescribed in mandatory terms by the rules.
- The absence of a plaint is a substantial jurisdictional point, not a trivial technicality, and the court has discretion to award costs to a party obliged to defend an incompetent application.
- Unlike the English order 29 rule 1(3), Kenyan procedure rules contain no provision empowering pre-action interlocutory applications, so no such power exists.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs on the appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over a ruling and orders of the High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Ngei Phase1 Residents Association Suing Through Timothy Maina & 2 others v Simwa & 11 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E052 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3519 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3519 (KLR)11 Jun 2026
- Kabaka & 3 others v Ngigi & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 921 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 921 (KLR)11 Feb 2026
- Cherekweny v Cherekweny (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8330 (KLR)27 Nov 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Law Society of Kenya [1988] KECA 81 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1988). Civil Appeal No 5 of 1985. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1988/81/eng@1988-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.