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

Peter Ng’ang’a Muiruri v Peter Nganga Muiruri & another [2009] KECA 46 (KLR)

[2009] KECA 46 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
46
Citation
[2009] KECA 46 (KLR)
Decided
20 November 2009
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for injunction pending an intended appeal from the order of the High CourtCoramE. O. O’KUBASU, J. W. ONYANGO OTIENO, D. K. S. AGANYANYA
Holding

The application is dismissed with costs, as the intended appeal is not arguable and the success of the appeal would not render the proceedings in HCCC No.1928 of 2000 nugatory.

Facts

The appellant obtained a loan from Housing Finance Company of Kenya (HFCK) secured by a charge over his land parcel. He later filed an injunction application in the High Court, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant then filed a new application in Milimani Commercial Court, which was also dismissed for abuse of process. The appellant sought an injunction in a previous case (HCCC No. 1928 of 2000), which was reinstated and dismissed for loss of interest. The appellant then filed a chamber summons seeking to join additional parties and amend the plaint.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  2. Whether the success of the intended appeal would render the proceedings in HCCC No.1928 of 2000 nugatory.

Reasoning

The court found that the intended appeal is not arguable due to the history of the case and the law, but it cannot be determined for certain. The court also noted that the applicant can still proceed with damages against the respondents if the appeal succeeds.

Outcome

The application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for injunction is dismissed.
  • The chamber summons is dismissed.
  • The intended appeal is not arguable.

Remedies

  • Damages against the respondents if the intended appeal succeeds.
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