SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

G4S SECURITY SERVICES (K) LIMITED v GROUP FOUR SECURITY LIMITED (Civil Application 19 of 2007) [2007] KECA 109 (KLR) (30 March 2007) (Ruling)

[2007] KECA 109 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
109
Citation
[2007] KECA 109 (KLR)
Decided
30 March 2007
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for stay pending appealCoramAzangalala, JUDGE OF APPEAL, Waweru
Holding

The Court of Appeal granted the stay of the injunction order.

Facts

The respondent filed a suit against the applicant alleging infringement of trade mark and passing off services. The respondent sought an injunction restraining the applicant from trading in the name of Group 4 Securicor or any similar name and to cease all activities under the same name. The applicant applied for a stay of the injunction order.

Issues

  1. Whether the injunction order should be stayed pending the appeal
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss and irreparable damage if the injunction is not stayed

Reasoning

The Court considered the substantial loss the applicant would suffer and the potential loss of corporate identity to the respondent if the injunction was stayed. The Court found that the injury to the applicant was quantifiable, while the injury to the respondent was not adequately compensated by damages.

Outcome

The injunction order was stayed pending the determination of the intended appeal.

Orders

  • The injunction order of the High Court be stayed pending the determination of the intended appeal against such order to the Court of Appeal

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Kenya Shell Ltd vs. Kibiru & Another [1980] KLR 410
  • Mukuma vs. Abuoga [1988] KLR 645
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case