Jones Nduati and Sospeter Kabuba Kariuki have made an application to be enjoined in this suit as interested party.
The applications is grounded on fact that the applicants are bonafide shareholders of the defendant herein. By virtue of being shareholder the applicants are entitled to access to information relating to the company including audited financial statements and status of legal proceeding the company is involved in. The current director of the defendant in breach of their statutory obligation under the company act have failed to make disclosure about the affairs of the defendant including the nature and proceedings herein. The directors have been running the defendant as a private entity in disregard to the rights of the members. The defendant’s directors have failed to disclose the status: of the subject matter in this suit including whether the same has been sold or leased to the plaintiff . The directors of the defendants have failed to disclose the proceeds from the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant herein. The applicants being bonafide members of the defendant their interest can only be protected by being enjoined in this current proceeding.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Jones Nduati Kariuki that reiterates the grounds in the application. The plaintiff and defendant do not oppose the application.
I have considered the application and do find that the interest of the applicant shall be taken care by the defendant. The grievances raised by the interested party against defendant are not connected to any issue in the suit. The applicant will suffer no prejudice and can file a suit against the defendant and ask for information.
The issue as to who qualifies to be enjoined as an interested party was fully addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others Petition 15 as consolidated with 16 of 2013 [2016] eKLR set forth the elements applicable as follows:…One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements:
(i)The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
(ii)The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. (iii)Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court. The applicants have not met the above test and therefore the application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The applications is grounded on fact that the applicants are bonafide shareholders of the defendant herein. By virtue of being shareholder the applicants are entitled to access to information relating to the company including audited financial statements and status of legal proceeding the company is involved in. The current director of the defendant in breach of their statutory obligation under the company act have failed to make disclosure about the affairs of the defendant including the nature and proceedings herein. The directors have been running the defendant as a private entity in disregard to the rights of the members. The defendant’s directors have failed to disclose the status: of the subject matter in this suit including whether the same has been sold or leased to the plaintiff . The directors of the defendants have failed to disclose the proceeds from the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant herein. The applicants being bonafide members of the defendant their interest can only be protected by being enjoined in this current proceeding.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Jones Nduati Kariuki that reiterates the grounds in the application. The plaintiff and defendant do not oppose the application.
I have considered the application and do find that the interest of the applicant shall be taken care by the defendant. The grievances raised by the interested party against defendant are not connected to any issue in the suit. The applicant will suffer no prejudice and can file a suit against the defendant and ask for information.
The issue as to who qualifies to be enjoined as an interested party was fully addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 others Petition 15 as consolidated with 16 of 2013 [2016] eKLR set forth the elements applicable as follows:…One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements:
(i)The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
(ii)The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. (iii)Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court. The applicants have not met the above test and therefore the application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.