Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedH.C.C.C No. 27 of 2012· [2014] KEELC 300 (KLR)

Mirko Blaeterman(Suing Through His Power Of Attorney Shabir Hatim Ali & Another v David Mwangi Muiruri & 2 Others [2014] KEELC 300 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
20 June 2014
OAO. A. Angote
620 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on an application by the 1st and 2nd Defendants dated 10th March 2014 in H.C.C.C No. 27 of 2012 at the Malindi High Court, seeking declarations that the orders of injunction granted in favour of the 1st Plaintiff on 6th November 2012 had automatically lapsed under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be discharged for non-compliance with the terms of the order. The injunction, issued by Meoli J, had restrained the Defendants from trespassing on, selling, alienating or dealing with the suit property pending determination of the suit and Criminal Case No. 345 of 2012, on condition that the 1st Plaintiff deposit a bank guarantee of Ksh.1 million valid for one year and renewable annually as security for damages and costs. The Defendants deponed, through the affidavit of David Mwangi Muiruri, that the guarantee from Chase Bank expired on 13th November 2013 and was never renewed, a fact confirmed by the bank's letter of 7th March 2014. The 1st Plaintiff filed no replying affidavit, only Grounds of Opposition blaming the Defendants for delays. The court held that the injunction had been granted on condition of annual renewal of the guarantee, which did not happen, and that under Order 40 Rule 2(2) the court may grant injunctions on terms as to security. The court discharged the injunction and ordered the 1st Plaintiff to pay the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the injunction should lapse or be discharged for failure to renew the bank guarantee security

Holding

The court discharged the injunction because the 1st Plaintiff failed to renew the bank guarantee as directed by the court when granting the injunction

Reasoning

Meoli J had granted the injunction on condition that the 1st Plaintiff deposit a bank guarantee of Ksh.1 million valid for one year and renewable annually as undertaking for damages and costs. The guarantee from Chase Bank expired on 13th November 2013 and was never renewed, as confirmed by the bank's letter of 7th March 2014. Order 40 Rule 2(2) permits the court to grant injunctions on terms as to security. Non-compliance with that condition warranted discharge of the injunction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party granted an injunction on condition of providing security who fails to renew the security as directed risks discharge of the injunction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order of injunction granted by the Court on 11th September 2012 and issued on 7th November 2012 is discharged
  2. 2.The 1st Plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 2(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under the Civil Procedure Rules (Order 40 Rules 2(2) and 6) in a first-instance civil suit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mirko Blaeterman(Suing Through His Power Of Attorney Shabir Hatim Ali & Another v David Mwangi Muiruri & 2 Others [2014] KEELC 300 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). H.C.C.C No. 27 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/300/eng@2014-06-20

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.