Automated Summary
Key Facts
Mosiara Trading Company Limited, the registered owner of LR No.209/12227, filed an injunction application after their building on the property was demolished as riparian land. The court dismissed the injunction due to lack of evidence showing ongoing interference, noting the applicant could seek compensation in their existing constitutional claim case. The 1st and 2nd respondents opposed the application, citing hearsay and abuse of process, while other respondents did not file responses.
Issues
The court was required to determine whether the Applicant has made out a case for the grant of an injunction by showing a prima facie case of property infringement, potential irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience in favor of the Applicant. The Applicant claimed unauthorized interference with LR No.209/12227, while the Respondents argued the application was based on hearsay and lacked sufficient evidence.
Holdings
The court dismissed the Applicant's injunction application, finding no evidence of interference with the property. The Applicant's claims lack merit and the application is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Remedies
The court dismissed the Applicant's injunction application, finding it lacked merits, and awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principles for granting an interim injunction as established in Giella Vs Casma Brown & Co.Ltd (1973) EA 358. These include: (1) demonstrating a prima facie case with probability of success, (2) showing risk of irreparable injury not compensable in monetary terms, and (3) deciding on a balance of convenience if there is doubt.
Precedent Name
Giella Vs Casma Brown & Co.Ltd
Judge Name
E. O. Obaga
Passage Text
- 7. The Principles for grant of an injunction were well set out in the case of Giella Vs Casma Brown & Co.Ltd (1973) EA 358. Firstly, an Applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success. Secondly, an injunction will not normally be granted, unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which may not be compensated in monetary terms. Thirdly if the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on a balance of convenience.
- 9. The premises which were on the suit property were brought down. The Applicant has filed a suit seeking compensation. Even if there was any interference, the Applicant can always get compensation for any infringement on his property if he succeeds to show such interference or infringement. I therefore find that no injunction can be granted to the Applicant. The upshot of this is that I find that the Applicant's application has no merits. The same is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.