Introduction and Background
1. Before court is the application dated 2nd November 2024 brought under Section IA .1B ,3 ,3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules I,2,3 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The application seeks an injunctive order restraining the respondents from trading or conducting business under the name "MANMO INVESTMENT LIMITED", or using any other name that closely resembles or is similar to "MANMO CO-OPERATIVE SAVINGS AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED", particularly within the transport industry where the applicant and the 1st respondent conduct business or any related sector, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
3. The application is supported by the supporting and supplementary affidavits of James Kahara Mwangi sworn on 27th November 2024 and 20th February 2025 respectively. It is opposed through the replying affidavit sworn by Hezrone Mose sworn on 18th February 2025. Parties also filed their respective submissions which I have carefully considered alongside the application and response thereto.
Analysis and Determination
4. The sole issue for determination is whether the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction. The principles for granting interlocutory injunctions are well settled in Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358. The applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; that they will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages; and if in doubt, the court should determine the application on the balance of convenience.
5. In Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] eKLR, a prima facie case was defined as one where the material presented discloses an apparent right that has been infringed, requiring an explanation or rebuttal from the opposing party.
6. On the question of whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, I note that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark “MANMO SACCO SOCIETY LTD.” The Certificate of Registration produced in evidence indicates that the trademark was duly registered on 6th September 2024, with protection extending until 6th September 2034. The registration covers classes 25 and 39 of the International Classification of Goods and Services, namely, clothing and transportation services, the latter being directly relevant to the applicant’s business in the matatu sector. The authenticity and validity of this trademark certificate has not been challenged by the respondents.
7. In addition to the statutory protection, the applicant has demonstrated long-standing prior use of the name “Manmo” in its business operations. It produced a Certificate of Registration issued by the Ministry of Co-operative Development on 4th May 2003, confirming its registration as “Manmo Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Limited.” It is not in dispute that since incorporation, the applicant has operated a public transport enterprise under the name “Manmo,” for about 16 years before the incorporation of the 1st respondent on 7th November 2019.
8. This combination of a formal trademark registration together with the established historical use of the “Manmo” name in the transport sector gives weight to the applicant’s claim that it has exclusive rights to prevent the unauthorized or misleading use of the mark. In light of these circumstances, I find that the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success in relation to the claims of passing off and potential trademark infringement.
9. On the issue of irreparable harm, the respondents contend that no statements of accounts, business records, or customer complaints had been produced to substantiate the applicant’s claim. While it is true that no financial statements or empirical market data have been presented at this point of the trial, I take the view that the longevity of the applicant’s presence in the industry, coupled with its consistent use of the “Manmo” name, supports a presumption of accumulated goodwill and brand recognition.
10. Given the nature of intellectual property rights, the harm occasioned by their infringement is often intangible and not readily amenable to precise monetary quantification. In the present case, I am persuaded that the applicant has established a credible apprehension of such harm. At this interlocutory stage, and without making conclusive findings on the merits, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a real and substantial risk of suffering irreparable injury, should the respondents' impugned conduct be allowed to persist unrestrained.
11. With regard to the balance of convenience, the respondents have argued that both the applicant and the 1st respondent have been operating independently and that there has been no demonstrable interference between their respective businesses. On that basis, they urge the Court to preserve the status quo that existed prior to the filing of the present application.
12. However, having already found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark in question, evidenced by a valid certificate of registration, the weight of legal protection lies with the applicant. The balance of convenience, therefore, favours the grant of interim relief and tilts in favour of safeguarding the applicant’s goodwill, brand identity, and consumer recognition built over time.
Disposition
13. Accordingly, the application dated 28th November 2024 is allowed on the following terms;
i. A temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, employees, or any other persons acting on their behalf, from using the name "MANMO INVESTMENT LIMITED" or any other name deceptively or confusingly similar to "MANMO CO-OPERATIVE SAVINGS AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED" or the trademark “MANMO SACCO SOCIETY LTD” in connection with any transport-related business, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
ii. The costs of the application shall await the outcome of the suit.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
1. Before court is the application dated 2nd November 2024 brought under Section IA .1B ,3 ,3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rules I,2,3 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. The application seeks an injunctive order restraining the respondents from trading or conducting business under the name "MANMO INVESTMENT LIMITED", or using any other name that closely resembles or is similar to "MANMO CO-OPERATIVE SAVINGS AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED", particularly within the transport industry where the applicant and the 1st respondent conduct business or any related sector, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
3. The application is supported by the supporting and supplementary affidavits of James Kahara Mwangi sworn on 27th November 2024 and 20th February 2025 respectively. It is opposed through the replying affidavit sworn by Hezrone Mose sworn on 18th February 2025. Parties also filed their respective submissions which I have carefully considered alongside the application and response thereto.
Analysis and Determination
4. The sole issue for determination is whether the applicant has met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction. The principles for granting interlocutory injunctions are well settled in Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358. The applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success; that they will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages; and if in doubt, the court should determine the application on the balance of convenience.
5. In Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Ltd & 2 Others [2003] eKLR, a prima facie case was defined as one where the material presented discloses an apparent right that has been infringed, requiring an explanation or rebuttal from the opposing party.
6. On the question of whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, I note that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark “MANMO SACCO SOCIETY LTD.” The Certificate of Registration produced in evidence indicates that the trademark was duly registered on 6th September 2024, with protection extending until 6th September 2034. The registration covers classes 25 and 39 of the International Classification of Goods and Services, namely, clothing and transportation services, the latter being directly relevant to the applicant’s business in the matatu sector. The authenticity and validity of this trademark certificate has not been challenged by the respondents.
7. In addition to the statutory protection, the applicant has demonstrated long-standing prior use of the name “Manmo” in its business operations. It produced a Certificate of Registration issued by the Ministry of Co-operative Development on 4th May 2003, confirming its registration as “Manmo Co-operative Savings and Credit Society Limited.” It is not in dispute that since incorporation, the applicant has operated a public transport enterprise under the name “Manmo,” for about 16 years before the incorporation of the 1st respondent on 7th November 2019.
8. This combination of a formal trademark registration together with the established historical use of the “Manmo” name in the transport sector gives weight to the applicant’s claim that it has exclusive rights to prevent the unauthorized or misleading use of the mark. In light of these circumstances, I find that the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success in relation to the claims of passing off and potential trademark infringement.
9. On the issue of irreparable harm, the respondents contend that no statements of accounts, business records, or customer complaints had been produced to substantiate the applicant’s claim. While it is true that no financial statements or empirical market data have been presented at this point of the trial, I take the view that the longevity of the applicant’s presence in the industry, coupled with its consistent use of the “Manmo” name, supports a presumption of accumulated goodwill and brand recognition.
10. Given the nature of intellectual property rights, the harm occasioned by their infringement is often intangible and not readily amenable to precise monetary quantification. In the present case, I am persuaded that the applicant has established a credible apprehension of such harm. At this interlocutory stage, and without making conclusive findings on the merits, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a real and substantial risk of suffering irreparable injury, should the respondents' impugned conduct be allowed to persist unrestrained.
11. With regard to the balance of convenience, the respondents have argued that both the applicant and the 1st respondent have been operating independently and that there has been no demonstrable interference between their respective businesses. On that basis, they urge the Court to preserve the status quo that existed prior to the filing of the present application.
12. However, having already found that the applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark in question, evidenced by a valid certificate of registration, the weight of legal protection lies with the applicant. The balance of convenience, therefore, favours the grant of interim relief and tilts in favour of safeguarding the applicant’s goodwill, brand identity, and consumer recognition built over time.
Disposition
13. Accordingly, the application dated 28th November 2024 is allowed on the following terms;
i. A temporary injunction is hereby issued restraining the respondents, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, employees, or any other persons acting on their behalf, from using the name "MANMO INVESTMENT LIMITED" or any other name deceptively or confusingly similar to "MANMO CO-OPERATIVE SAVINGS AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED" or the trademark “MANMO SACCO SOCIETY LTD” in connection with any transport-related business, pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
ii. The costs of the application shall await the outcome of the suit.
Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NAIROBI
THIS 13th DAY OF JUNE 2025.
F. MUGAMBI
JUDGE