IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO 944 OF 2003 TERESIA KIMANI ……………………………………….. APPELLANT VERSUS GITHERE INVESTMENTS LIMITED …………….…. RESPONDENT RULING This is a Chamber Summons application brought under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3 A of the Civil Procedure Act for the following two main orders. 1. for maintenance of status quo until the appeal is heard and determined; and 2. for grant of temporary injunction from eviction … This application is incompetently before this court. If this is an application under Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules for a restraining order, there must be a suit filed before an application of this nature can be entertained by a court. There is no suit in existence, hence the application is incompetent. If there is an application for “stay” under Order 41 Rule 4 it ought to seek orders of “stay” and comply with the conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 4. It does not do so. This application is, therefore, incompetently before this court, and is struck out with costs to the Respondent. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 21st day of April, 2004. ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.