1. The plaintiff seeks to prevent the defendants from selling or transferring any of its properties pending the hearing and determination of the suit, and for costs to be provided for.
2. The plaintiff/applicant contends that it had already sold motor vehicle registration number KDA 845E to the 2nd defendant at the time the motor vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident.
3. The application is for an injunction. For an injunction to issue, the plaintiff needed to show that it had a prima facie case with a probability of success, to show that damages wouldn’t be an adequate remedy and to demonstrate the balance of convenience tilted in favour of granting an interim injunction (See Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358.
4. In the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that:
“26. 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 a temporary injunction is not granted, and
(c)ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
27. These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all three of the above conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct, and logical hurdles that the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case, that alone is not a sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction; the court must also be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer if the injunction is not granted will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law are 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 a 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 “leapfrogging” by the applicant to an injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between.
5. I have considered this matter carefully. I am not convinced that there is a prima facie case, as the matter has been extensively litigated in the court below. The judgment of the court was predicated on a consent. The judgment of the court below was not appealed and remains valid and binding.
6. I note that the issue in this cause is a money decree. I am not persuaded that the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages if he is successful.
7. Regarding convenience, I am of the view that the balance of convenience favours the denial of the orders sought.
8. That being the case, the application dated 20th June 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 26th day of June 2026.
2. The plaintiff/applicant contends that it had already sold motor vehicle registration number KDA 845E to the 2nd defendant at the time the motor vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident.
3. The application is for an injunction. For an injunction to issue, the plaintiff needed to show that it had a prima facie case with a probability of success, to show that damages wouldn’t be an adequate remedy and to demonstrate the balance of convenience tilted in favour of granting an interim injunction (See Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358.
4. In the case of Nguruman Limited v Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held that:
“26. 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 a temporary injunction is not granted, and
(c)ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
27. These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all three of the above conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct, and logical hurdles that the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially. See Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd V. Afraha Education Society [2001] Vol. 1 EA 86. If the applicant establishes a prima facie case, that alone is not a sufficient basis to grant an interlocutory injunction; the court must also be satisfied that the injury the respondent will suffer if the injunction is not granted will be irreparable. In other words, if damages recoverable in law are 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 a 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 “leapfrogging” by the applicant to an injunction directly without crossing the other hurdles in between.
5. I have considered this matter carefully. I am not convinced that there is a prima facie case, as the matter has been extensively litigated in the court below. The judgment of the court was predicated on a consent. The judgment of the court below was not appealed and remains valid and binding.
6. I note that the issue in this cause is a money decree. I am not persuaded that the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages if he is successful.
7. Regarding convenience, I am of the view that the balance of convenience favours the denial of the orders sought.
8. That being the case, the application dated 20th June 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 26th day of June 2026.