F G v M, A K M & I N T [2017] KEELC 2317 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court confirmed that a temporary injunction can be granted even when the lawsuit does not ask for a permanent injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a temporary injunction requires an anchoring prayer for permanent injunction in the plaint
No - it is not in all cases that a permanent injunction must be prayed for before a temporary injunction is granted
The court found that suits differ; some, like eviction suits, naturally seek permanent injunctions, but this was not such a suit. The appellants' authorities were proffered out of context and the magistrate rightly considered they did not suit the circumstances of the case. Accepting the appellants' argument would undermine the modern approach to interlocutory injunctions.
Whether the orders granted were wrongly framed as injunctions when the respondent sought refund of the purchase price
The magistrate's order was a valid preservation of status quo, restraining interference with existing use of the church and developments
The court found the appellants were not accurate in claiming the respondent sought only a refund; the plaint sought specific performance in the first instance. The orders merely restrained interference with existing developments, which the 1st appellant knew about, and their refusal would have caused immediate and pressing hardship. Following Bharat Petroleum, such interlocutory relief restores rather than establishes a new state of things.
Whether the magistrate breached stare decisis by declining to follow Timoi Farms
No breach demonstrated; the magistrate considered the authorities and found them inapposite to the facts
The court held that the appellants failed to show how the magistrate refused to be bound by superior court decisions. Since no single superior court decision fits all factual circumstances, the magistrate was entitled to find the proffered authorities unsuited to this case. The authorities were proffered out of context.
Validity of the contract and guardianship of the minor appellant
Issues of contract validity, prima facie case and guardian ad litem are for the trial court after hearing the suit
The appellate court declined to delve into whether a contract existed or was valid, as these are matters for the trial court. Similarly, grounds 2 to 6, including the guardian ad litem complaint under Order 32 Rule 3, would best be considered by the trial court after full hearing of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- A temporary injunction may be granted on an interlocutory application even where the plaint does not contain a prayer for a permanent injunction
- Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted only in rare cases, to restore rather than establish a new state of things
- No superior court decision fits the facts of every suit before lower courts; authorities must be applied in context
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs shall be in the main cause in the lower court
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court at Chuka
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over the Principal Magistrate's Court (appeal against interim injunction ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "F G v M, A K M & I N T [2017] KEELC 2317 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2317/eng@2017-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.