Power Solutions Limited v CMA CGM Kenya Limited & 2 others [2013] eKLR

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court examined whether the plaintiff, Power Solutions Limited, is legally obligated to pay storage charges to CMA CGM Kenya Limited, Awanad Enterprises Limited, and Kenya Ports Authority for containers detained at the port. The plaintiff argued that the non-payment was justified due to the defendants' failure to properly manifest the containers, leading to wrongful detention.
• The plaintiff sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the immediate release of five containers held by the defendants. The court considered whether such an injunction should be granted without determining the plaintiff's liability for storage charges, referencing precedents that require a 'clear case' for mandatory relief at this stage.

Holdings

• The Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2012 seeking a mandatory injunction for the release of five containers was dismissed. The court emphasized that an interlocutory injunction should not determine the suit at an early stage and directed parties to file paginated documents and witness statements within 14 days for a full hearing.
• A hearing date was scheduled for after the parties comply with the 14-day filing requirement. The court stressed the importance of resolving the matter through trial rather than interlocutory orders, referencing precedent on mandatory injunction standards.
• The court ruled that any release of containers must await the full hearing after all evidence is tendered. It highlighted that the case does not meet the high threshold for a mandatory interlocutory injunction, requiring a clear determination of liability for storage charges.

Remedies

• At the reading of this ruling, parties will be given a hearing date.
• All parties are directed to file paginated documents and all their witness statements within 14 days from the date of this ruling. Any document or witness statement not filed within that period will not be relied upon at the full hearing without the Court's leave.
• The Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2012 is dismissed, with the costs thereof being in the cause.

Legal Principles

Precedent Name

Judge Name

Passage Text

• 5. The Plaintiff in its plaint as stated before seeks a declaration that it should not pay the storage charges. It therefore follows that to order the release of the containers to the Plaintiff would be determining the suit at interlocutory stage. I do not think that in this case that would be desirable. In my view what the parties should seek is an early hearing date of this suit so that any release of the containers is done only after the parties have tendered their evidence.
• "A mandatory injunction ought not to be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances, and then only in clear cases wither where the court thought that the matter ought to be decided at once or where the injunction was directed at a simple and summary act which could be easily remedied or where the defendant had attempted to steal a march on the plaintiff. Moreover, before granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction the court had to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it would appear that the injunction had rightly been granted, that being a different and higher standard than was required for a prohibitory injunction (see p 906 d to g and p 907 f, post); dictum of Megarry J in Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham [1970]3 All ER at 412 applied."

Damages / Relief Type

• Compensation for the full contract value of the consignment (US$700,000).
• Permanent injunction to restrain defendants from alienating or retaining the plaintiff's consignment of five containers.
• Declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to pay storage charges to the defendants.