Yunis v Yusuf

5. The Defendant was duly served with the application but did not respond to the application. The assertions by the Plainti in her application are therefore uncontroverted. Determination 6. The sole issue for determination is whether the Plainti’s application meets the threshold for the grant of orders of temporary injunction pending the hearing of the main suit. 7. The Plainti’s application is brought under the provisions of Order 40 rule 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The order sought is an interlocutory order, which according to the denition by Cotton, L.J in the case of Gilbert – Vs- Edean (1878) 9 Ch. 259, does not decide the rights of the parties. It is only meant to keep things in status quo until the rights can be decided after a full hearing of the matter. 8. In determining an interlocutory application, the court is therefore not called upon to resolve the issues in dispute with nality. AS expressed in the case of Giella – vs – Cassman Brown & Company Ltd (1973) E.A 358, all that is expected of the court is to establish whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and that if the injunction is not granted, the applicant is likely to suer irreparable loss that cannot be compensated by an award of damages; in other words, the court needs to be satised that the applicant’s case is neither frivolous nor vexatious. 9. Having carefully considered the Plainti’s application in its entirety, I am persuaded that it meets the threshold for the grant of orders of a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. The Plainti has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success and that she is likely to suer irreparable loss unless the order of temporary injunction is granted. 10. For purposes of preservation of the substratum of the suit, the court considers it appropriate to issue the temporary injunction orders sought by the Plainti. Consequently; A. Pending the hearing and determination of this suit, an order of temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendant/Respondent from entering, encroaching, trespassing, remaining on, using, constructing, damaging, wasting away or in any way dealing or interfering in any manner with the suit property and the Plainti’s peaceful, quiet possession, enjoyment and use of the suit property known as L.R No. 3734/294 (original 3734/5/181) delineated on land survey plan number 54084 and situated along Chalbi Drive in Lavington within the Nairobi City County. B. The OCS Muthangari Police Station is directed to ensure compliance with this order C. An Order of inhibition be and is hereby issued directing registration of an inhibition over the title L.R. No. 3734/294 (Original 3724/5/181) restricting any dealings including but not limited to transfer charge or lease or any other transaction interfering with the Plainti’s ownership of the property. D. Costs shall be in the cause. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/14139/eng@2024-11-06 2

page 2 of 3

Mr. Kinyanjui h/b for Mr. Litoro for the Plainti/Applicant N/A by the Defendant/Respondent Court Assistant: Yvette https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/14139/eng@2024-11-06 3

page 3 of 3