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

RAJAB KATEKE, ABDILAHI HAMISI DAHAB, ANDREW OCHIENG, DAVID MBUGUA & 4 others v MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MOMBASA, PRABULA SHAH, JITENDRA M. KANABA, MR. SUTHIR & another (Civil Suit 354 of 1993) [2006] KEHC 2312 (KLR) (31 May 2006)

[2006] KEHC 2312 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2312
Citation
[2006] KEHC 2312 (KLR)
Decided
31 May 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureApplication for Temporary InjunctionCoramJ.K. SERGON
Holding

The summons dated 2/9/2005 has no merit and is dismissed with costs to the 5th Respondent.

Facts

The applicants, Rajab Kateka, Abdilahi Hamisi Dahab, Andrew Mbugua, David Mbugua, Hastings Thuku, Said Awadh, James Onyango Khanda, and Raphael Gondi, sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Municipal Council of Mombasa, Prabula Shah, Jitendra Kanaba, Mr. Suthir, and Omicron Investment from interfering with their peaceful occupation and enjoyment of Plot No. 740/V/MN pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  2. Whether the applicants are likely to suffer irreparable loss.
  3. Whether the court should consider the balance of convenience.

Reasoning

The applicants have no registered interest over the land because the memorandum of understanding was not registered nor noted in the register of the suit premises. The applicants have not demonstrated that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success against the 5th Respondent whose interest is superior in view of the fact that the 5th Respondent has title to the suit premises. The damage anticipated is ascertainable, and the applicants will not suffer irreparable loss.

Outcome

The application is dismissed with costs to the 5th Respondent.

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