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

Dubai Bank Kenya Limited v Ukamba Agricultural Institute [2017] KEHC 494 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 494 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
494
Citation
[2017] KEHC 494 (KLR)
Decided
14 December 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureNotice of Motion ApplicationCoramNot explicitly named in the text, but implied to be the presiding judge(s)
Holding

The Court finds that the orders made on 29 June 2012 have lapsed and are not enforceable due to the one-year limitation period for temporary injunctions under Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The vesting order cannot be reviewed or set aside.

Facts

The Applicant, Dubai Bank Kenya Limited, filed a Notice of Motion Application on 18 April 2012, seeking various orders including a temporary injunction, mandatory injunctions, and a vesting order. The Respondent, Ukamba Agricultural Institute, filed a suit against the Applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendants/Applicants were aware of the Notice of Motion Application dated 18 April 2012
  2. Whether the Applicant has met the threshold for setting aside of the orders and/or whether the impugned orders have lapsed and/or become spent and not enforceable
  3. Whether the Court can review, set aside or vacate the vesting order made on 29 June 2012
  4. Who will pay the costs of this Application

Reasoning

The Court ruled that the temporary injunction order lapsed on 28 June 2013, as it was not extended by the parties. The interlocutory orders were not intended to be pending the hearing and determination of the Application inter partes, but rather pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Outcome

The Court dismissed the Application.

Orders

  • Vesting Order

Remedies

  • Costs of the Application to be provided for

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  • Civil Procedure Act
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