ARTHUR WANYOIKE WAINAINA & 2 OTHERS vs WANGECHI GABRIEL NJIRI [1998] KECA 156 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused an injunction because the applicants had never actually filed the appeal they wanted to protect.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an application for an injunction in an intended appeal can be considered where no appeal has been filed since 1991
Key legal issues
#Whether an injunction can be granted in an intended appeal where no appeal has been filed
The court dismissed the application, holding that without a filed appeal there is no basis upon which the application can be considered.
The applicants sought an injunction in an intended appeal from a 1991 High Court ruling. The court observed that although the application dated from 1991, no appeal had ever been filed in the intervening period. In the absence of a filed appeal, the court found no basis on which the interlocutory application could be considered, and dismissed it with costs.
Legal principles established
#- An application for an injunction in an intended appeal cannot be entertained where no appeal has been filed.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for an injunction in the intended appeal is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.A. No. 167 of 1982
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over applications for injunction in an intended appeal (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Injunction in an intended appeal
No appeal had been filed since 1991, so there was no basis to consider the application
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
As no appeal has been filed since 1991, we do not see the basis upon which this application can be considered now.
We order that the application be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ARTHUR WANYOIKE WAINAINA & 2 OTHERS vs WANGECHI GABRIEL NJIRI [1998] KECA 156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Application No. Nai. 45 of 1991. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/156/eng@1998-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.