Jatinder Kaur Grewal & 3 others v Ravinder Singh Grewal & 2 others

3. Although the Court directed that the matter be canvassed by way of written submissions, only the Plaintiffs filed submissions. The Court has nonetheless considered the affidavits, annexures, and the applicable law. 4. The Plaintiffs’ case is that certain gifts of shares and properties made within the family were not absolute and were subject to conditions arising from a family estate planning arrangement embodied, at least in part, in a Deed of Allocation dated 14th October, 2014. 5. The Defendants deny any such conditions and contend that all transfers, whether of shares or land, were absolute and unconditional. They rely extensively on the documentary record, including the terms of the Deed of Allocation itself, to rebut the Plaintiffs’ claims. 6. The test for the grant of interlocutory injunctions is well settled. In Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358, the court held that an Applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, must show that he or she stands to suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and if the court is in doubt, the matter is to be resolved on the balance of convenience. 7. The Court of Appeal in Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & Others [2013] KECA 347 clarified that these requirements operate sequentially. The absence of a prima facie case ends the inquiry. 8. The definition of a prima facie case set out in Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd [2003] eKLR remains authoritative. The court stated that a prima facie case is one in which the material presented shows an apparent infringement of a right that calls for an answer or rebuttal from the opposing party. Analysis and Determination 9. The Plaintiffs rely on equitable doctrines including constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and incomplete gifts. They cite authorities such as Bannister v Bannister [1948] 2 All ER 133, Micheni A. Nyagah & Others v Robert Njue (Chuka CA No. 29 of 2019), and cases on trust and company law including Ghelani Metals Limited & Others v Elesh Ghelani Natwarlal & Another [2017] eKLR and Farouk Ravate & Another v Eric Agbeko & Others [2020] eKLR. 10. Their argument is that the 1st Defendant accepted benefits arising from the family arrangements but rejected obligations, thereby holding the shares and properties upon a constructive trust. 11. The evidence on the record does not however support the Plaintiffs version of events. Rather, the documentary record contradicts the assertions. The Deed of Allocation describes the distributions as 'equitably and absolutely' and contains a clause stating that no person or company mentioned therein will have any claim whatsoever against another once the Deed is executed. 12. The evidence further shows that titles to LR 37/113 and LR 37/114 were transferred to the Defendants a year before the Deed of Allocation. This chronology of event directly undermines the Plaintiffs’ contention that those properties were subject to conditions imposed by the later Deed. 13. The Defendants also contend that the 1st Defendant’s holding of 2,500 shares was not a gift at all, but arose through a documented share swap for consideration. That assertion, supported by documents, stands in direct conflict with the Plaintiffs’ narrative, and appears more persuasive. 14. The affidavit evidence therefore presents two irreconcilable accounts. The Plaintiffs rely on alleged oral conditions and implied obligations, while the Defendants rely on written instruments that contradict those assertions. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence alone and will require viva voce testimony. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16774/eng@2025-11-13 2

page 2 of 3

15. At this interlocutory stage, however, the Court must determine whether a prima facie case has been established. The contradictions in the Plaintiffs’ evidence and the strength of the documentary rebuttal offered by the Defendants prevent the Court from making such a finding. 16. In accordance with the guidance in Nguruman, once the court concludes that no prima facie case has been established, it need not consider the remaining limbs of irreparable harm or balance of convenience. Disposition 17. th In the result, the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion dated 7th October, 2023, is dismissed with costs. day of November, 2025 DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 13 ALEEM VISRAM, FCIARB JUDGE In the presence of; Court Assistant: Lispa …………………………….........................................................for 1st Plaintiff …………………………………………………………………for 2nd Plaintiff ……………………………………………………….……..….for 3rd Plaintiff …………………………………………………………...……..for 4th Plaintiff …………………………………………………………...….. for 1st Defendant ……………………………………………….………...…… for 2nd Defendant …………………………………………………………...…..for 3rd Defendant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/16774/eng@2025-11-13 3

page 3 of 3