George Abonyo Obete T/A Rakwel Body Builders v Ecobank Kenya Limited [2017] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff has established reasonable grounds for the order sought to be granted.
• Whether the application has been brought under the correct provisions of the law.
• Who pays the costs.

Holdings

• The interim order was extended from 2016-10-11 to 2017-02-01, with parties required to file submissions within the specified timelines.
• The Defendant's counsel moved to discharge the interim injunction on 2017-02-01 due to the Plaintiff's non-compliance, which the court granted.
• The Plaintiff's non-compliance with court directions violated Section 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, causing unnecessary costs and delays.
• The court issued prayer 2 of the notice of motion dated 2016-09-09 in the interim pending the inter partes hearing on 2016-10-11.
• The Plaintiff failed to file submissions by 2016-11-17, outside the 14-day deadline, and did not seek an extension, constituting negligence under Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act.
• The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for reinstatement with costs, finding no merit in the motion dated 2017-02-02.
• The application to reinstate the interim order was brought under Order 40 Rule 1, which the court found irrelevant for reinstating a discharged injunction.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court dismissed the application to reinstate an interim injunction due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with procedural timelines, leading to a discharged order. The court emphasized that non-compliance with directions under Section 1A of the Civil Procedure Act resulted in unjustifiable delay and contravened the duty to assist the court.
• The court applied costs principles, dismissing the application with costs against the plaintiff for failing to meet procedural obligations. This decision was based on the plaintiff's negligence in complying with Section 1A (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which mandates adherence to court directions to avoid unnecessary delays and costs.

Precedent Name

• Ketteman v Hausel Properties Ltd
• Tana & Athi River Development Authority v Jeremiah Kimlgho & 3 Others
• Charles Omwata Omwoyo v African Highlands & Produce C. Ltd

Cited Statute

• Civil Procedure Rules
• Civil Procedure Act

Judge Name

Passage Text

• That the application is said to be brought under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides for cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. That the main purpose of the application is to reinstate the interim order vacated on the 1st February 2017 and Rule 1 of the said order has no relevance to this application for reinstatement of a discharged interim injunction order.
• That the Plaintiff and his counsel on record failed to comply with the directions of the court of 11th October 2016 was against the duty the Law places on them under Section 1A (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of Laws of Kenya which is 'a duty to assist the court to further the overriding objective of the Act, to that effect, to participate in the processes of the court and comply with the directions and orders of the court.' The overriding objective of the court is set out in Section 1A (1) as 'to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of the Civil disputes.' That the failure to comply with the clear directions of the court on the timelines of filing and service would obviously result in delay the finalization of the matter which inevitably means more costs.
• That flowing from the foregoing the court finds no merit in the notice of motion dated 2nd February 2017 and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.