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

James Mbatia Thuo & another v Kenya Railways Corporation & another [2015] KECA 850 (KLR)

[2015] KECA 850 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
850
Citation
[2015] KECA 850 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for injunction pending the hearing and determination of an intended appealCoramW. KARAN, P. M. MWILU, S. GATEMBU KAIRU
Holding

The court allows the application for injunction and orders the applicants to continue paying due rent.

Facts

The applicants are former employees of Kenya Railways Corporation who entered into an annual lease agreement with the corporation. The corporation later issued notices to terminate the leases and require the applicants to vacate the suit premises. The applicants then filed a judicial review suit seeking orders to prevent eviction and compel the corporation to sell the premises to them.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  2. Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.

Reasoning

The court finds the intended appeal arguable and satisfied that the applicants have met the second limb of the test, thus allowing the application.

Outcome

The applicants are granted an injunction pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.

Orders

  • Order for temporary injunction

Remedies

  • Continued rent payments

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
Cases cited (3)
  • Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd (2002) 1 EA 227
  • Githunguri v Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd & Others (No.2) [1988] KLR 828
  • Ahmed Musa Ismael v Kumba Ole Ntamorua & 4 others
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