Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Case 150 of 2011|
|Parties:||RAMADHAN M. JUMA t/a ONE LABEL AGENCIES LTD v MIZPAH TOTAL SOLUTIONS LTD|
|Date Delivered:||25 Nov 2011|
|Court:||High Court at Nyeri|
|Judge(s):||Philip Nyamu Waki|
|Citation:||RAMADHAN M. JUMA v MIZPAH TOTAL SOLUTIONS LTD eKLR|
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
CIVIL CASE NO. 150 OF 2011
This application was filed under certificate of urgency and therefore prayer (a) and (b) of the said application have been dispensed with. What is now before the court is prayer (c) in which the applicant seeks an order:
Though served the defendant did not respond to the application and therefore the matter proceeded exparte.
The brief facts upon which the court is asked to make a ruling are as stated in the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff/Applicant herein and briefly the same deponed that the defendant engaged his services in construction of MIZPAH HOUSING PROJECT in March 2011 and in fulfilling the obligations therein he purchased goods and materials on behalf of the defendant amounting to Ksh. 4,000,000/= (four million) by the time when the contract was allegedly terminated. To the said affidavit the applicant has annexed that he calls a description of goods or materials purchased and services rendered.
Based on these facts the same seeks an injunction against the defendant as stated herein above.
Before looking at the plaintiff’s application in totality the court needs to look at the principles upon which the orders sought might be granted and whether the plaintiff has met the said principles to enable the court grant the orders sought. The principle upon which the court can grant injunction have well been settled in Kenya through the classic case of GIELLA v CASSMAN BROWN & CO. LTDE.A. 358 wherein the then East Africa Court of Appeal set the principles as follows:
Has the applicant shown a prima facie case with a probability of success? The applicant claims that there was a contract between himself and the defendant to provide services for constructing MIZPHA HOUSING PROJECT but the applicant does not make it clear whether the contract was oral or in writing and does not show the terms of the said contract.
Though at this point in time the court is not supposed to look at the merits of the case it would be hard to answer the above question at this stage based upon the material placed before the court and therefore the same shall be left to the trial court to answer.
In the plaint filed together with the summons herein the same is seeking the payment of Ksh. 4,000,000/= together with interest therein at courts rate being the total sum of what he had spent on behalf of the defendant as at the time of the alleged termination. To my mind this is a purely monetary claim and should the plaintiff at the end of the day prove his case against the defendant herein the same will reasonably be compensated by way of damages.
The net result of the above is that the applicant has not convinced the court to exercise its discretion in his favour and therefore the same though unopposed is dismissed with no order as to costs.