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

Kevin Isika Mule v HFC Limited [2017] KEELRC 442 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 442 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
442
Citation
[2017] KEELRC 442 (KLR)
Decided
28 September 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeInterlocutory InjunctionPostureRespondent seeks a super injunction to restrain publication of information and protect confidentialityCoramM. Mbaru JUDGE
Holding

The court granted the super injunction to restrain the publication of confidential information and protect the privacy of the respondent's customers, directors, employees, and shareholders.

Facts

Claimant filed a suit against the respondent alleging that various matters published in the media and blogs are defamatory and breach confidentiality. The respondent claims that the publication relates to confidential information of their customers, directors, employees, and shareholders.

Issues

  1. Whether to grant a super injunction to restrain publication of confidential information
  2. Whether the respondent has unclean hands in publishing the information

Reasoning

The court found that the respondent has established a prima facie case and that the irreparable harm is apparent. The court also noted that the respondent has unclean hands in publishing the information.

Outcome

Granting of the super injunction

Orders

  • Interim restraining orders with a super injunction

Remedies

  • Prohibition of publication of confidential information

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Nguruman Limited versus Jan Bonde Nielson 7 2 others, [2012] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86
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