Efficient Dynamics & Supplies Limited v Gret Café’ Limited (Environment & Land Case E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 773 (KLR)

The plaintiff's claim rested solely on a subsisting lease dated 28/10/2022 expiring 31/01/2028. The court found doubt whether the plaintiff would suffer loss not compensable by damages and held that granting the mandatory injunction would dispose of the main suit at interlocutory stage. The lease termination issue required evidence at trial.

Contempt being quasi-criminal, proof must be almost beyond reasonable doubt. The three elements (terms of order, knowledge, non-compliance) were not established; the affidavit of service did not show service of the order with the mandatory penal notice, and the alleged false affidavit of service was not rebutted.

Under Order 42 rule 6 stay presupposes an appeal or intention to appeal; no notice of appeal or appeal existed, and the applicant did not demonstrate substantial loss.

The interested party was already in occupation of the suit property under a lease dated 28/06/2023 when the ex parte orders issued, but the plaintiff did not enjoin it. That constituted error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1.

The interested party held an alleged lease over the suit property and was affected by the orders of 18/07/2023 while in occupation, giving it a recognizable stake or legal interest in the proceedings.