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

Rift Valley Sports Club v Patrick James Ocholla (Civil Appeal 172 of 2002) [2005] KEHC 1674 (KLR) (15 June 2005) (Judgment)

[2005] KEHC 1674 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1674
Citation
[2005] KEHC 1674 (KLR)
Decided
15 June 2005
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a decision of a Chief Magistrate granting an injunctionCoramD. MUSINGA
Holding

The injunction granted by the learned magistrate was set aside, and the appellant was allowed the costs of the appeal.

Facts

The respondent filed a suit against the appellant, his former employer, alleging unlawful termination of his services and claiming various dues. He also filed an application for an injunction to restrain the appellant from evicting him from the club house pending the finalisation of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's application for an injunction was res judicata by virtue of the proceedings and ruling in High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002.
  2. Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and fact in finding that the injunction was merited on the grounds that the respondent had not yet been paid his undetermined dues.

Reasoning

The learned magistrate erred in law and fact by granting an injunction that was not merited, as the respondent had already vacated the appellant's house and the High Court had already made a determination on the respondent's application for an injunction.

Outcome

Appeal allowed, injunction set aside

Orders

  • The appellant is allowed the costs of the appeal.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • OCHIENG NYAMOGO & ANOTHER VS KENYA POSTS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS Civil Application No. NAI 204 of 1993
  • ERICK J. MAKOKHA & 4 OTHERS VS LAWRENCE SAGINI & 2 OTHERS Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1994
  • GREENFIELD INVESTMENTS LTD VS BABER ALIBHAI MANJI, Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1997
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case