Peter Tomito Korinko & 2 others v Korinko N Nkoliai & 12 others [2015] KEHC 6442 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 6442
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6442 (KLR)
- Decided
- 13 February 2015
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil SuitPostureAppeal from the original trial outcomeCoramThe presiding judge
Holding
The court held that the defendants are not entitled to the security deposit of Kshs. 250,000 as they have not proven any damages incurred from the ex parte injunction.
Facts
The plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants on June 6, 2013, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from proceeding with a land sub-division and related activities. The plaintiffs also applied for a security deposit of Kshs. 250,000 to secure any potential damages the defendants might incur.
Issues
- Whether the defendants are entitled to the security deposit of Kshs. 250,000
- Whether the defendants can bring their application under section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reasoning
The court ruled that the security deposit was intended to cover potential damages and could only be released upon proof of such damages. The defendants failed to provide evidence of any damages.
Outcome
The defendants' application was dismissed.
Orders
- The ex parte interim injunction granted to the plaintiffs was upheld.
- The defendants' application for a security deposit of Kshs. 250,000 was dismissed.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Civil Procedure Act
Cases cited (1)
- Mayers and Another vs. Akira Ranch Ltd. (No.2), [1972]E.A.347
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.
Loading judgment…