'The applicant filed the application dated 10.6.24 seeking :
1. Spent
2. Spent
3. THAT depending the hearing of the mention of this suit this, the Honourable court be pleased to issue orders of injunction restraining the respondents by themselves, their servants and agents proxies and/or person is exercising and authority from them from interfering with the property.
4. THAT the costs of the application be in the cause.
WHICH APPLICATION is based on the grounds;-
(a) THAT the applicants have been harassed and intimidated by the respondent who are extensively destroying the property.
(b) THAT unless the applicant certified agent and heard immediately and the order \sought granted, the respondent will proceed with their illegal acts and the application will be rendered nugatory.
(c) THAT it is only unfair that this honourable court proceedings to hear underline this application on priority basis.
(d) This application will not occasion any prejudice to the respondents or damage if it is allowed.
2. The applicants relied on the annexed affidavit of Geoffrey Fred Ongori . He told the court that his sisters Redemptor Gesare Moseti and Wilfridah Moraa have been intermeddling with the estate of deceased and that they tilling it , destroying their crops , houses as per photographs annexture -GFO 1. Also that caused extensive damage while ploughing with a tractor and blocked access to the houses and compound. Further that unless they are stopped there may be bloodshed
2. The respondent herein Wilfrida Slome Moraa in her replying affidavit dated 10.6.24 told this court that she and the 1st applicant are administrators of the estate of the deceased herein and that the grant was confirmed and it was ordered that the estate be shared equally by the beneficiaries but it has not been possible to finalise the distribution of the estate to individual beneficiaries due to condenscending attitude of the applicant herein who is opposed to herself and her sister having a share of the estate . She annexed a copy of the confirmed grant (WSM -4) She denied that herself and her sister have been intermeddling with the estate of deceased as alleged. She deponed that the applicant is not satisfied with her appointment as administrator and has since been uncooperative. She further states that this application is one of the schemes to forestall the efficient and faithful administration of the estate .Wilfrida also filed a further affidavit .
4. In the applicants submission, they stated that , the threshold for injunctive reliefs was set by the locus classicus case of Giella Versus cassman Brown Ltd (1973) EA 358 in Nguruman Limited versus far bonded Nielsen & 2 others CA No.77 of 2012 where it was held that “In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to;
(a) Establish his case only at a prima facie level
(b) Demonstrate irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted, and
(c) Alley any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
The court went further to state following;
“These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and tests are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd versus Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol IEA86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction. The court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted irreparable, in other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no considerations. The existence of a prima facie case does not permit leap. frogging by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between”
5. The applicants also relied on the case of Mrao Ltd versus First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others (2003) ATR 125, a prima facie case was defined in the following words:
“in Civil cases a prima facie case is a case in which on the material presented to Court, a tribunal property directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter. A prima facie case is more than an arguable case. It is not sufficient to raise issues but the evidence must show an infringement of a right, and the probability of success of the applicant’s case upon trial That is clearly a standard which is higher than an arguable case.
As stated in the Nguruman case (supra), the existence of a prima facie case with a probability of success is not the end of story. We are obligated to interrogate the second crucial pillar, as to whether damages are an adequate remedy. See also Margaret Njoki Mgwi versus Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd (supra) in which the court approved the holding of the Supreme Court of India in Dalpat Kumar &z another versus Prahlad Singh &z others AIR 1993 SC 276, that “the phrases “prima facie case” “irreparable loss” and “balance of convenience” are not mere rhetoric phrases or incantations. They are important factors to be carefully weighed and considered in each and every case where an application for an injunction is applied for’’
6. It was further submitted that the guiding principle of the overriding objective is that the court should do justice to the parties before it and their interest must be weighed and that the prevailing circumstances point towards granting of the orders sought . They also cited the case of Charter House Investments Ltd vs. Simon K. Sang and others, Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2004 where it was held that -
‘’Injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy, given when the subject matter of the case before the court requires protection and maintenance of the status quo. The award of a temporary injunction by courts of equity has never been regarded as a matter of right, even where irreparable injury is likely to result to the applicant. It is a matter of sound judicial discretion, in the exercise of which the court balances the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them and to third parties. In the Giella case (supra) the predecessor of this Court laid down the principle that for one to succeed in such an application, one must demonstrate a prima facie case with reasonable prospect of success that he stands to suffer irreparable damage which cannot be compensated for by an award of damages and that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour.”
Further that It is not the role of the court when considering the interim applications to make a final determination on the conflicting affidavit evidence. As Lord Diplock held in American Cyanamid Co (No 1) vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL It is no part of the court’s function at this stage of litigation to try to resolve conflicting affidavit as evidence on affidavit as to facts on which the claims of ether party may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mature considerations. “
7. They also cited the case of adding to the fc Muthia vs Jimba Credit Finance Corporation be another [1988] KLR 1 where it was held that “the correct approach in dealing with an application for an interlocutory injunction is not to decide the issues of fact, but rather to weigh up the relevant strength of each sides propositions “
Expounding on the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (supra), this Court, in the case of Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2014] eKLR stated that
“If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying. No interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience.
8. The respondents on the other the other hand in her submissions stated that The principles guiding the handling of Applications for temporary injunctions are now well settled and are as was set out in the case of Giella vs. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358 and also in American Cyanamid Co. V Ethicom Limited (1975) A AER, She also cited the case of Nguruman Limited vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR (supra . She also cited Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. Where it was held that ‘’ If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying, no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration. The existence of a prima facie case does not permit “leap-frogging” by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between. It is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages available to either party or both that the question of balance of convenience would arise. The inconvenience to the applicant if interlocutory injunction is refused would be balanced and compared with that of the respondent, if it is granted” They also submitted that the applicants are seeking to deny then their right to inheritance of their mother’s estate .
Issues for determination.
9. I have considered the application, the two replying affidavits, the response from each party’s submissions . I Proceed to strike out the further replying affidavit as it was filed without any legal basis and without leave of this court . The issue for determination is one that is ;
Whether the application has met the threshold for grant of injunction orders pending hearing and determination of this succession cause.
Analysis and determination
10. he threshold for granting temporary injunctions in Kenya were laid down in the celebrated case of Giella vs Casman Brown (Supra) to wit ; that the applicant must establish ;
i. A prima facie case with high chances of success .
ii. Irreparable loss or
iii. Balance of convenience
11. These principles were upheld in the case of Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielson & 2 Others [2014]eKLR. Order 40. rule 1 of the civil procedure Rules governs the grant of temporary injunctions in Kenya
12. On prima face case , the applicant must show an arguable case at this stage and it is not in the place of the court to go into the merits and demerits of the case . In the case of Kevin K Mwiti & others v Kenya School of Law & others [2015] KEHC 2294 (KLR) it was held that: “51.A prima facie case, it has been held is not a case which must succeed at the hearing of the main case. However, it is not a case which is frivolous. In other words the Petitioner has to show that he or she has a case which discloses arguable issues and in this case arguable Constitutional issues. It has been held that in considering an application for conservatory orders, the court is not called upon to make any definite finding either of fact or law as that is the province of the court that will ultimately hear the petition. At this stage the applicant is only required to establish a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. Accordingly in determining this application, the Court is not required-indeed it is forbidden- from making definite and conclusive findings on either fact or law. I will therefore refrain from making any determinations whose effect would be to prejudice the hearing of the main Petitions/Application.”
13. In Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielson & 2 Others [2014]eKLR ‘’Order 40. rule 1 of the civil procedure Rules governs the grant of temporary injunctions Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.1.Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—a.that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or y g wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; That the Defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property in circumstances affording reasonable probability that the Plaintiff will or may be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the Defendant in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
14. In the case of Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others, [2003]KLR 125 considered what constitute a prima facie case and held that:-
“In civil cases, a prima facie case is a case in which on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter”
15. The applicants said that the respondents destroyed their crops and damaged their houses and blocked their way. The respondent denied this . However apart from the photographs produced no particular dates were given to show when the incidents occurred .Also that the photographs do not show that crops were damaged by the respondents and that the damage was on the portions of land occupied by the applicants . I find that the applicants have not showed a clear arguable case against the respondents .
16. On irreparable loss , this is a loss which cannot be quantified in monetary terms . The applicants argued that they lost crops and their houses were damaged and photographs were produced to show damage to the crops. The respondent denied this. I find that the losses herein can be quantified in monetary terms in a crop damage report by an agricultural officer .
17. On balance of convenience , this is a family matter involving the estate of deceased , the both the applicants and respondent are beneficiaries to the estate of deceased as per the confirmed grant dated 19.6.2023 . The balance of convenience tilts towards not granting the injunction as this would amount to locking out the respondent from the estate .
18. In the upshot , this application is not merited .I proceed to dismiss it .
19. This being a family matter there is no orders as to costs .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
26.11.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN THE PRESENCE MR NYARIKIFOR THE RESPONDENT. MISS ONCHWERI FOR THE RESPONDENT . OF CA KIPCHIRCHIR .
Nyariki : I am for Wilfrida and Francis in application dated 24.9.25 . They are the applicants . Respondent is acting in person. He served relying affidavit dated 11.9.25 . I seek that we proceed by way of written submissions. I seek 14 days to file the same . The application seeks that DR be allowed to execute transfer forms .
John Mokongu : I will file submissions .
Order : Each party is granted 14 days to file submissions.
Order : Mention 10.3.26. No application should be filed without leave of the court . Parties are cautioned to keep peace.
T.AODERA
JUDGE
26.112.6
'
1. Spent
2. Spent
3. THAT depending the hearing of the mention of this suit this, the Honourable court be pleased to issue orders of injunction restraining the respondents by themselves, their servants and agents proxies and/or person is exercising and authority from them from interfering with the property.
4. THAT the costs of the application be in the cause.
WHICH APPLICATION is based on the grounds;-
(a) THAT the applicants have been harassed and intimidated by the respondent who are extensively destroying the property.
(b) THAT unless the applicant certified agent and heard immediately and the order \sought granted, the respondent will proceed with their illegal acts and the application will be rendered nugatory.
(c) THAT it is only unfair that this honourable court proceedings to hear underline this application on priority basis.
(d) This application will not occasion any prejudice to the respondents or damage if it is allowed.
2. The applicants relied on the annexed affidavit of Geoffrey Fred Ongori . He told the court that his sisters Redemptor Gesare Moseti and Wilfridah Moraa have been intermeddling with the estate of deceased and that they tilling it , destroying their crops , houses as per photographs annexture -GFO 1. Also that caused extensive damage while ploughing with a tractor and blocked access to the houses and compound. Further that unless they are stopped there may be bloodshed
2. The respondent herein Wilfrida Slome Moraa in her replying affidavit dated 10.6.24 told this court that she and the 1st applicant are administrators of the estate of the deceased herein and that the grant was confirmed and it was ordered that the estate be shared equally by the beneficiaries but it has not been possible to finalise the distribution of the estate to individual beneficiaries due to condenscending attitude of the applicant herein who is opposed to herself and her sister having a share of the estate . She annexed a copy of the confirmed grant (WSM -4) She denied that herself and her sister have been intermeddling with the estate of deceased as alleged. She deponed that the applicant is not satisfied with her appointment as administrator and has since been uncooperative. She further states that this application is one of the schemes to forestall the efficient and faithful administration of the estate .Wilfrida also filed a further affidavit .
4. In the applicants submission, they stated that , the threshold for injunctive reliefs was set by the locus classicus case of Giella Versus cassman Brown Ltd (1973) EA 358 in Nguruman Limited versus far bonded Nielsen & 2 others CA No.77 of 2012 where it was held that “In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to;
(a) Establish his case only at a prima facie level
(b) Demonstrate irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted, and
(c) Alley any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
The court went further to state following;
“These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and tests are to be applied as separate, distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd versus Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol IEA86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction. The court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted irreparable, in other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no considerations. The existence of a prima facie case does not permit leap. frogging by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between”
5. The applicants also relied on the case of Mrao Ltd versus First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 others (2003) ATR 125, a prima facie case was defined in the following words:
“in Civil cases a prima facie case is a case in which on the material presented to Court, a tribunal property directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter. A prima facie case is more than an arguable case. It is not sufficient to raise issues but the evidence must show an infringement of a right, and the probability of success of the applicant’s case upon trial That is clearly a standard which is higher than an arguable case.
As stated in the Nguruman case (supra), the existence of a prima facie case with a probability of success is not the end of story. We are obligated to interrogate the second crucial pillar, as to whether damages are an adequate remedy. See also Margaret Njoki Mgwi versus Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd (supra) in which the court approved the holding of the Supreme Court of India in Dalpat Kumar &z another versus Prahlad Singh &z others AIR 1993 SC 276, that “the phrases “prima facie case” “irreparable loss” and “balance of convenience” are not mere rhetoric phrases or incantations. They are important factors to be carefully weighed and considered in each and every case where an application for an injunction is applied for’’
6. It was further submitted that the guiding principle of the overriding objective is that the court should do justice to the parties before it and their interest must be weighed and that the prevailing circumstances point towards granting of the orders sought . They also cited the case of Charter House Investments Ltd vs. Simon K. Sang and others, Civil Appeal No. 315 of 2004 where it was held that -
‘’Injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy, given when the subject matter of the case before the court requires protection and maintenance of the status quo. The award of a temporary injunction by courts of equity has never been regarded as a matter of right, even where irreparable injury is likely to result to the applicant. It is a matter of sound judicial discretion, in the exercise of which the court balances the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them and to third parties. In the Giella case (supra) the predecessor of this Court laid down the principle that for one to succeed in such an application, one must demonstrate a prima facie case with reasonable prospect of success that he stands to suffer irreparable damage which cannot be compensated for by an award of damages and that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour.”
Further that It is not the role of the court when considering the interim applications to make a final determination on the conflicting affidavit evidence. As Lord Diplock held in American Cyanamid Co (No 1) vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL It is no part of the court’s function at this stage of litigation to try to resolve conflicting affidavit as evidence on affidavit as to facts on which the claims of ether party may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mature considerations. “
7. They also cited the case of adding to the fc Muthia vs Jimba Credit Finance Corporation be another [1988] KLR 1 where it was held that “the correct approach in dealing with an application for an interlocutory injunction is not to decide the issues of fact, but rather to weigh up the relevant strength of each sides propositions “
Expounding on the principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (supra), this Court, in the case of Nguruman Limited vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others [2014] eKLR stated that
“If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying. No interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience.
8. The respondents on the other the other hand in her submissions stated that The principles guiding the handling of Applications for temporary injunctions are now well settled and are as was set out in the case of Giella vs. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358 and also in American Cyanamid Co. V Ethicom Limited (1975) A AER, She also cited the case of Nguruman Limited vs. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR (supra . She also cited Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. Where it was held that ‘’ If the applicant establishes a prima facie case that alone is not sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court must further be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer, in the event the injunction is not granted, will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law is an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying, no interlocutory order of injunction should normally be granted, however strong the applicant’s claim may appear at that stage. If prima facie case is not established, then irreparable injury and balance of convenience need no consideration. The existence of a prima facie case does not permit “leap-frogging” by the applicant to injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between. It is where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages available to either party or both that the question of balance of convenience would arise. The inconvenience to the applicant if interlocutory injunction is refused would be balanced and compared with that of the respondent, if it is granted” They also submitted that the applicants are seeking to deny then their right to inheritance of their mother’s estate .
Issues for determination.
9. I have considered the application, the two replying affidavits, the response from each party’s submissions . I Proceed to strike out the further replying affidavit as it was filed without any legal basis and without leave of this court . The issue for determination is one that is ;
Whether the application has met the threshold for grant of injunction orders pending hearing and determination of this succession cause.
Analysis and determination
10. he threshold for granting temporary injunctions in Kenya were laid down in the celebrated case of Giella vs Casman Brown (Supra) to wit ; that the applicant must establish ;
i. A prima facie case with high chances of success .
ii. Irreparable loss or
iii. Balance of convenience
11. These principles were upheld in the case of Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielson & 2 Others [2014]eKLR. Order 40. rule 1 of the civil procedure Rules governs the grant of temporary injunctions in Kenya
12. On prima face case , the applicant must show an arguable case at this stage and it is not in the place of the court to go into the merits and demerits of the case . In the case of Kevin K Mwiti & others v Kenya School of Law & others [2015] KEHC 2294 (KLR) it was held that: “51.A prima facie case, it has been held is not a case which must succeed at the hearing of the main case. However, it is not a case which is frivolous. In other words the Petitioner has to show that he or she has a case which discloses arguable issues and in this case arguable Constitutional issues. It has been held that in considering an application for conservatory orders, the court is not called upon to make any definite finding either of fact or law as that is the province of the court that will ultimately hear the petition. At this stage the applicant is only required to establish a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. Accordingly in determining this application, the Court is not required-indeed it is forbidden- from making definite and conclusive findings on either fact or law. I will therefore refrain from making any determinations whose effect would be to prejudice the hearing of the main Petitions/Application.”
13. In Nguruman Ltd v Jan Bonde Nielson & 2 Others [2014]eKLR ‘’Order 40. rule 1 of the civil procedure Rules governs the grant of temporary injunctions Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.1.Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise—a.that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit, or y g wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; That the Defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property in circumstances affording reasonable probability that the Plaintiff will or may be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the Defendant in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
14. In the case of Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya & 2 Others, [2003]KLR 125 considered what constitute a prima facie case and held that:-
“In civil cases, a prima facie case is a case in which on the material presented to the court, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter”
15. The applicants said that the respondents destroyed their crops and damaged their houses and blocked their way. The respondent denied this . However apart from the photographs produced no particular dates were given to show when the incidents occurred .Also that the photographs do not show that crops were damaged by the respondents and that the damage was on the portions of land occupied by the applicants . I find that the applicants have not showed a clear arguable case against the respondents .
16. On irreparable loss , this is a loss which cannot be quantified in monetary terms . The applicants argued that they lost crops and their houses were damaged and photographs were produced to show damage to the crops. The respondent denied this. I find that the losses herein can be quantified in monetary terms in a crop damage report by an agricultural officer .
17. On balance of convenience , this is a family matter involving the estate of deceased , the both the applicants and respondent are beneficiaries to the estate of deceased as per the confirmed grant dated 19.6.2023 . The balance of convenience tilts towards not granting the injunction as this would amount to locking out the respondent from the estate .
18. In the upshot , this application is not merited .I proceed to dismiss it .
19. This being a family matter there is no orders as to costs .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
26.11.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN THE PRESENCE MR NYARIKIFOR THE RESPONDENT. MISS ONCHWERI FOR THE RESPONDENT . OF CA KIPCHIRCHIR .
Nyariki : I am for Wilfrida and Francis in application dated 24.9.25 . They are the applicants . Respondent is acting in person. He served relying affidavit dated 11.9.25 . I seek that we proceed by way of written submissions. I seek 14 days to file the same . The application seeks that DR be allowed to execute transfer forms .
John Mokongu : I will file submissions .
Order : Each party is granted 14 days to file submissions.
Order : Mention 10.3.26. No application should be filed without leave of the court . Parties are cautioned to keep peace.
T.AODERA
JUDGE
26.112.6
'