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

Mavumba v Kamau (Civil Application E087 of 2021) [2022] KECA 451 (KLR) (18 March 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KECA 451 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
451
Citation
[2022] KECA 451 (KLR)
Decided
18 March 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureApplication for injunction against the RespondentCoramS. GATEMBU KAIRU, P. NYAMWEYA, J. LESIIT
Holding

The court found the intended appeal to be arguable and ordered the status quo to be maintained until the appeal is heard and determined.

Facts

The Applicant, Mavumba, sought an injunction against the Respondent, Kamau, to restrain him from selling, charging, transferring or constructing on the suit property or dealing in any manner whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal against the judgment and decree of Hon. C. Yano J. dated 2nd June 2021 in Mombasa ELC Case No. 185 of 2012.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  2. Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted and the appeal ultimately succeeds.

Reasoning

The court considered the application, the supporting and replying affidavits of the respective parties, and the filed written submissions of counsel. The court found that the intended appeal is arguable and that the appeal will not be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted.

Outcome

The court ordered the status quo to be maintained until the appeal is heard and determined.

Orders

  • Order that the status quo as currently obtains on the ground be maintained until the appeal is heard and determined.

Remedies

  • Order to maintain the status quo until the appeal is heard and determined.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui vs Tony Ketter and others [2013] eKLR
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