Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiffs applied for an urgent temporary injunction to prevent the listing of Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB) Shares Rights Issue on the Nairobi Stock Exchange on August 19, 2010. The court found that the applicants had months to prepare for the event and failed to act timely, rendering their urgency insincere. The injunction was denied as granting it would be unfair to the defendants, who had made extensive preparations. The application was certified as urgent for an inter partes hearing during the court's vacation.
Issues
- The court must determine if the application for a temporary injunction and urgent hearing is justified given the applicants' failure to act promptly despite being aware of the 19th August 2010 listing date. The judge found the apparent urgency was created by the applicants' delay, which deprived the matter of genuine urgency.
- The court assesses the validity of the KCB Shares Rights Issue, with the applicants seeking to have it declared void from inception. The judge noted the shareholders had approved the rights issue in May 2010, and the applicants' failure to challenge it earlier undermined their position.
- The court evaluates whether to issue a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from listing the KCB Shares Rights Issue on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. The judge concluded that granting the injunction ex parte at the last minute would be inequitable, as it would allow the applicants to unfairly benefit from their own delay.
Holdings
- The application was certified as urgent and scheduled for an inter partes hearing during the court's vacation on a priority basis. However, the court explicitly stated that this was due to the applicants' procedural failure to file earlier, not because the matter lacked urgency in principle.
- The court found that the applicants' claimed urgency was self-created due to their failure to act timely. The judge noted that the applicants had months of notice about the scheduled listing on 19th August 2010 but delayed filing their application until 9th August 2010. This delay deprived the application of genuine urgency and would be unfair to grant the injunction at this late stage.
- The court ruled that the temporary injunction should not be granted ex parte. The judge emphasized that such a significant order requires input from all parties and that granting it based on the applicants' last-minute application would be unjust. The court also rejected the notion of allowing the applicants to 'steal a march' on the respondents or 'play to the gallery'.
Remedies
The court certified the application as urgent and ordered that it be served for an inter partes hearing during the Vacation on a priority basis. The temporary injunction was denied due to the applicants' delay in seeking relief.
Legal Principles
The court denied the interim injunction application due to the applicants' delay in seeking relief, emphasizing that such injunctions require timely action and proper procedural fairness. The judge noted the urgency was self-created and granting the injunction ex parte would be inequitable.
Cited Statute
- Judicature Act
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
- Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act
Judge Name
L. Njagi
Passage Text
- The dilatory conduct of the Applicants has deprived this application of the poignant urgency which it would have carried if they had come to Court timeously. For what it is worth, I direct that the application by Chamber Summons dated 9th August, 2010, be and is hereby certified urgent and served for hearing inter partes during the Vacation on a date to be given by the Registry on priority basis.
- The apparent urgency, therefore, has been created by the Applicants' failure to move the Court timeously. Secondly, the injunction sought is of such great moment that it ought to be granted after a well informed canvassing by all the parties. I don't think it will be proper to grant it ex parte at the instance of the Applicants who have come to Court at the last moment.
- After months of preparation for tomorrow's event, of which the Applicants were no doubt aware, I think it would be unfair to allow the Applicants to precipitate and capitalize on a crisis which was within their ability to avoid. A Court of justice should avoid such eventualities.