REPUBLIC   OF  KENYA

IN THE HIGH  COURT  OF  KENYA  AT  NAKURU

HCC 79 OF 2012

JANE   WAITHERA  …………………..…………..PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JOSEPH   KARIUKI MBUTHIA ….…..…1^ST DEFENDANT

NATIONAL  BANK  OF  KENYA………..2^ND  DEFENDANT

GICHURU  WA KAMUTHO………………3^RD  DEFENDANT

KARIUKI  NGIGE…………………………..4^TH  DEFENDANT

                               RULING

1. The plaintiff  Jane  Waithera  filed this suit  against the  Defendants  Joseph  Kariuki Mbuthia, National Bank of  Kenya, Gichuruwa Kamotho  and  Kariuki Ngige  on  12^th March, 2012. The key prayer in the plaint is for an order of  permanent injunction against  the  Defendants.

 2. Contemporaneous the  plaint,  the   plaintiff  filed  an application under certificate of urgency for temporary injunction pending the determination of the application. The said application was served upon the defendants.

3. An amended application seeking similar orders was filed on 14^th March, 2012 and a temporary injunction granted exparte. The application was set down for inter parties hearing on 23^rd March 2012.

4. Inter parties hearing did not proceed on 23^rd March 2012 and interim orders were extended. The said orders were further extended on 15^th May 2012, 21^st June 2012, 3^rd October 2012, 30^th October 2012 and 23^rd November 2012.

5. When  the  application came  up for  hearing On 9^th   May, 2013 Mr Gathenji acting for the 1^st and 4^th defendants was ready  to  proceed  with the application  he had been  served with  i.e. the application  dated  12^th  March, 2013.  Mr Nyamwange holding brief  for  Mr  Ikua stated that  the application coming up for hearing was the one dated  14^th  March, 2013.

6. Directions  were taken by consent that the  Application  dated  12^th   March,  2013 be disposed  of by  way  of written  submissions.  A  date for highlighting was given  as  22^nd  July,  2013.

7. When I retired to chambers, I took the liberty to peruse  the  court   proceedings. I noted that indeed an amended  Notice  of  Motion dated  14^th  March, 2013 had been filed, heard exparte and a temporary injunction granted  on the same date.

8. A Notice was issued to the parties and directions changed. Written submissions would now be filed for   the  application  dated  14^th  March, 2013.  By this time the  1^st , 2^nd   and  4^th  Defendants  had  filed their  written  submissions  for the  Application  dated 12^th  March, 2013. They still had not been served with the application dated 14^th March, 2012. The Court again  directed that the defendants be served with the application. To date the defendants are yet to be  served with the said application and yet the plaintiff continues enjoying the interim orders. I am convinced that the counsel for the applicant is not serious about this application.

Order  40  Rule  4 (3)  provides:

In any  case  where the  court  grants an  ex parte  injunction the  applicant  shall within three  days  from the date of  issue  of the order  serve  the order, the  application and  pleading on the  party  sought to be  restrained.  In default of  service  of any  of the documents specified under this rule, the injunction shall automatically lapse.

9. Order 40 (3) is couched in mandatory terms. The orders enjoyed by the applicant ought to have lapsed long ago for failure to serve the pleadings. This did not happen but the court should not allow an injustice to continue.  10.In the interest of justice, I discharge the orders for injunction granted on 14^th March  2012 and dismiss the amended application dated 14^th March, 2012 under sections 1A 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.

11. Parties are directed to comply with Order 11 within 60 days and take a mention date in the registry.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 20^th day  of  December 2013.

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE

PRESENT

Mr  Murithi  holding  brief  for  Mr   Kiburi  Kamonjo  for  2^nd  Defendant

Mr  Otieno  holding  brief  for the  plaintiff

N/A  for  1^st  &  4^th  Defendants

Emmanuel  Maelo:  Court  Assistant

L N WAITHAKA

JUDGE