1.The applicant in a notice of motion (Under Order 40 Rule 1&2 of the civil procedure rules, 2010 Sections 1A & 1 B, 3 3A& 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, and all other enabling provisions of the law) dated 13/5/2025 seeks that the court grants him the following orders :
i. SPENT
ii. SPENT
iii. . THAT pending inter parties Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, family members, relatives and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from engaging in any activity meant advertise in a move to replace any party or vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
iv. SPENT
v. THAT рending inter-parties Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, family members, relatives and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from making any payments to any person be it a contractor or any other entity with regards to the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant
vi. THAT cost of this application be provided for.
vii. THAT such further and/or other orders be made as the court may deem fit and expedient.
2. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of JOB ONDITI MOKAYA and on the grounds that ;
a, THAT on the 17th of September, 2019, the Plaintiff/Applicant thought it’s sole Director one JOB ONDITI MOKAYA entered into a SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement with Kisii National Polytechnic (KNP).
b. THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant herein entered into the said agreement to offer consultancy services for the SIFA Project a fact that is well known to the Defendant/Respondents.
c. THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant performed his duties as per the said agreement but the Defendant/Respondents have decided to breach the said contract by advertising the same consultancy service with a move to engaging another contractor contrary to the agreement in place.
d. THAT it was agreed in the said agreement that the Plaintiff/Applicant was entitled to a payment of 11.5 percent of the total budget of the SIFA project and to date the same is not yet paid and the Defendant/Respondents are in the process of soliciting for the services of another contractor as evident in an advertisement dated 04th Feb 2025 in a move to replace the Plaintiff/Applicant.
e. THAT there is clear breach of contract and it is in the interest of justice that interim orders are issued in order to prevent further harm on the Plaintiff/Applicant.
f. THAT with specific reference to clause 8.0 of the said SIFA PROJECT CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT dated 17th September, 2019, under the Terms and Conditions, KNP undertook to provide 11.5% of the total SIFA Project construction budget (179 245.94 EUROS) to award TELEPATHY STUDIO LTD K the Plaintiff herein upon signing of the SIFA project Implementation agreement by the AUDA NEPAD.
g. THAT the agreement was authored by the KNP in good faith ,voluntarily without any fraud or coercion with a written offer, consideration and acceptance signed by the parties and the same is binding, enforceable and speaks for itself and the terms are subject to no discussion unless the same is varied by the parties to it upon a written agreement.
h. THAT the Memorandum of Agreement was entered under very extraordinary circumstances and urgency to submit the concept note and proposal with the Architectural designs, technical dossier, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report before ward of the contract which rendered application of procurement procedures impossible without any a prior budget.
i. THAT Memorandum of Agreement is protected under Regulation 1.6.8 of KfW Procurement regulations that prevails over the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act on pre award contracts/Agreements relating to AUDA NEPAD project.
j. THAT the Memorandum of Agreement is not an ordinary procurement contract under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act,2015 since there was no budget for the Project yet the proposal mandatorily required Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report, Architectural designs, tender dossier and Bill of Quantities.
k. That the claim is payable since the project Implementation agreement was signed and approved by the AUDA NEPAD Executive Director on 08th Feb 2024, KNP council Secretary and Principal authorized representative and the Principal Secretary SDVTT on 17th Sep 2023.
l. That unless this honorable court issues orders stopping the defendants respondents from the said activities which amount to breach of contract the plaintiff/applicant will suffer losses considering the fact that it has already performed its part.
m. That the plaintiff applicant will suffer irreparable harm and losses if the defendant/respondents are not restrained as prayed since the Plaintiff’s stands to be replaced.
n. That the application has been made so timely and without any reasonable delay and it is in the interest of justice that the orders be granted as prayed.
3. The said JOB ONDITI MOKAYA swore the annexed affidavit dated 13.5.25 in which he states that he is the sole director of the applicant/ plaintiff and went on to narrate the facts of the case and how the company entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent/ defendant (JOM 2) and performed it’s obligations therein . However the respondents unilaterally placed an advertisement for the same consultancy on 4.2.25 seeking another consultant before paying the applicant it’s dues as per the agreement.
4. The matter came up for certificate of urgency on and the respondents were directed to file a response by 23.5.25 and directions were set for 4.6.25 but the respondents did neither entered any appearance nor filed a replying affidavit within the said time despite service . Ruling was set for 4.7.25. On 10.6.25 the Hon. Attorney general files a memorandum of appearance dated for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent . On 4.6.25 the ruling was not ready and it was deferred 7.8.25 . On 31.7.25 the respondent filed a replying affidavit of Akola John Otieno sworn on 23.7.25 out of time . The said replying affidavit was sneaked into record as it was filed after directions and ruling date. No leave was sought to file the same had been set and the applicant had no chance to respond to it . I proceed to strike it out for being an abuse of the process of the court. The Application is thus undefended .
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. The applicant seeks for a temporary injunction to restrain respondents and their associates from attempting to replace it to vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/9/2019 pending the hearing of the main suit, a temporary injunction to stop any payments to any person or entity regarding the project without the applicant’s consent. The applicant annexed the said agreement between it and Kisii Polytechnic (JOM- 1 ) and the re-advertisement (JOM -2 )
6. The principles for granting of temporary injunctions in Kenya were laid down case of Giella vs Casman Brown 1973 EA 358 to wit ;
i. Prima facie case with high chances of success ,
ii. Irreparable loss or
iii. Balance of convenience .
The said principles were reiterated in the case Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR)
[2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR) where it was held that the power to grant temporary injunction is at the discretion of the Court. This discretion however should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles. Before granting a temporary injunction, the court must consider the following principles: --
1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
2) Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted.
3) Where the balance of convenience tilts if the court is in doubt.
7. The existence of a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff is necessary before a temporary injunction can be granted. Prima Facie case has been explained to mean that a serious question to be tried in the suit and in the event of success, if the injunction be not granted the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury. The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by establishing that he has a Prima Facie case with high chances of success . A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were to be believed.
In the case of MRAO LTD VS FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LTD AND 2 OTHERS
It was held that - ‘‘In civil cases a prima facie case is a case in which the material presented to the court ,a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right has apparently been infringed or violated 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, the probability of success of the applicants case upon trial. That is clearly a standard, which is higher than an arguable case.
In the case of Kenleb Cons Ltd vs New Gatitu Service Station Ltd & another[12] Bosire J held that “to succeed in an application for injunction, an applicant must not only make a full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts to the just determination of the application but must also show he has a right legal or equitable, which requires protection by injunction.”
8. The case before this court alleges breach of contract by the respondents . It has emerged that the Plaintiff/Applicant (Telepathy Studio Limited K) entered into a Consultancy Agreement with Kisii National Polytechnic (KNP) on 17th September 2019.The agreement clearly outlined the Plaintiff’s role in providing consultancy services for the SIFA Project, including architectural designs, technical documentation, and Environmental & Social Impact Assessment. The Plaintiff has pleaded that it fulfilled it’s contractual duties, including preparation and submission of required documentation and the agreement and thus it says it is entitled the Plaintiff to 11.5% of the total project budget (EUR 179,245.94) as per the agreement. It accused the respondent / Defendants allegedly breached the agreement by advertising the same consultancy service on 4th Feb 2025 to engage another contractor and attempting to replace or vary the terms of the existing agreement without Plaintiff’s consent. The application is not opposed. The applicant has at this established the existence of the contract , that it performed it’s obligations and that the respondent has now re-advertised the same consultancy before paying it its dues . These facts strongly support a prima facie case of breach of contract.
7. .Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted
The second test for determination is whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss. The following paragraph in Halsbury’s Laws of England[14] is instructive. It reads:-
“It is the very first principle of injunction law that prima facie the court will not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages are the proper remedy. Where the court interferes by way of an injunction to prevent an injury in respect of which there is a legal remedy, it does so upon two distinct grounds first, that the injury is irreparable and second, that it is continuous. By the term irreparable injury is meant injury which is substantial and could never be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, not injury which cannot possibly be repaired and the fact that the plaintiff may have a right to recover damages is no objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction by injunction, if his rights cannot be adequately protected or vindicated by damages. Even where the injury is capable of compensation in damages an injunction may be granted, if the act in respect of which relief is sought is likely to destroy the subject matter in question” In the case of Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others [2016] KEHC 7263 (KLR it was stated that where any doubt exists as to the applicants’ right, or if the right is not disputed, but its violation is denied, the court, in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted, takes into consideration the balance of convenience to the parties and the nature of the injury which the Respondent on the other hand, would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right and that which injury the applicant, on the other hand, might sustain if the injunction was refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right.[17] The burden of proof that the inconvenience which the applicant will suffer if the injunction is refused is greater than that which the respondent will suffer if it is granted lies on the applicant.[18] Thus, the court makes a determination as to which party will suffer the greater harm with the outcome of the motion. If applicant has a strong case on the merits or there is significant irreparable harm, it may influence the balance in favour of granting an injunction.[19]The court will seek to maintain the status quo in determining where the balance on convenience lies.’’This is a consultancy contract whose value is 179 245.94 Euros as per the agreement and thus its loss can be quantified in monetary terms and the anticipated loss to the applicant is reparable by way of damages ..
8.On balance of convenience , in the case of Paul Gitonga Wanjau (supra ) it was held that “as for the balance of convenience, I reiterate what I stated above, "the court makes a determination as to which party will suffer the greater harm with the outcome of the motion. If applicant has a strong case on the merits or there is significant irreparable harm, it may influence the balance in favour of granting an injunction.[20]The court will seek to maintain the status quo in determining where the balance on convenience lies." . The applicant herein has a prima facies case with high chances of success as already found hereinabove , the applicant’s case is that it was awarded the consultancy contract by the respondents and it has fulfilled it’s obligations under the contract and the respondents now want to terminate the contract before paying it and thus the balance of convenience tilts towards granting him the temporary injunction sought . This application has not been challenged , the applicant has shown the it will suffer greater harm that the respondents unless the injunction is not granted. I find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the temporary injunction.
9. In the upshot the applicant/plaintiff has established grounds for grant a temporary injunction. I proceed to make the following orders :
i. THAT pending Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from engaging in any activity meant advertise in a move to replace any party or vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
ii. THAT рending Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from making any payments to any person be it a contractor or any other entity with regards to the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
iii. Costs to the applicant .
iv. The respondent to file and serve a defence within 14 days form today.
v. Mention on 8.10.25 for pretrial direction.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
7.8.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAM PLATFORM ON THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF MASOLO FOR THE APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF …N/A ….FOR THE RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT CA : KIPCHIRCHIR
i. SPENT
ii. SPENT
iii. . THAT pending inter parties Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, family members, relatives and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from engaging in any activity meant advertise in a move to replace any party or vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
iv. SPENT
v. THAT рending inter-parties Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, family members, relatives and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from making any payments to any person be it a contractor or any other entity with regards to the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant
vi. THAT cost of this application be provided for.
vii. THAT such further and/or other orders be made as the court may deem fit and expedient.
2. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of JOB ONDITI MOKAYA and on the grounds that ;
a, THAT on the 17th of September, 2019, the Plaintiff/Applicant thought it’s sole Director one JOB ONDITI MOKAYA entered into a SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement with Kisii National Polytechnic (KNP).
b. THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant herein entered into the said agreement to offer consultancy services for the SIFA Project a fact that is well known to the Defendant/Respondents.
c. THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant performed his duties as per the said agreement but the Defendant/Respondents have decided to breach the said contract by advertising the same consultancy service with a move to engaging another contractor contrary to the agreement in place.
d. THAT it was agreed in the said agreement that the Plaintiff/Applicant was entitled to a payment of 11.5 percent of the total budget of the SIFA project and to date the same is not yet paid and the Defendant/Respondents are in the process of soliciting for the services of another contractor as evident in an advertisement dated 04th Feb 2025 in a move to replace the Plaintiff/Applicant.
e. THAT there is clear breach of contract and it is in the interest of justice that interim orders are issued in order to prevent further harm on the Plaintiff/Applicant.
f. THAT with specific reference to clause 8.0 of the said SIFA PROJECT CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT dated 17th September, 2019, under the Terms and Conditions, KNP undertook to provide 11.5% of the total SIFA Project construction budget (179 245.94 EUROS) to award TELEPATHY STUDIO LTD K the Plaintiff herein upon signing of the SIFA project Implementation agreement by the AUDA NEPAD.
g. THAT the agreement was authored by the KNP in good faith ,voluntarily without any fraud or coercion with a written offer, consideration and acceptance signed by the parties and the same is binding, enforceable and speaks for itself and the terms are subject to no discussion unless the same is varied by the parties to it upon a written agreement.
h. THAT the Memorandum of Agreement was entered under very extraordinary circumstances and urgency to submit the concept note and proposal with the Architectural designs, technical dossier, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report before ward of the contract which rendered application of procurement procedures impossible without any a prior budget.
i. THAT Memorandum of Agreement is protected under Regulation 1.6.8 of KfW Procurement regulations that prevails over the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act on pre award contracts/Agreements relating to AUDA NEPAD project.
j. THAT the Memorandum of Agreement is not an ordinary procurement contract under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act,2015 since there was no budget for the Project yet the proposal mandatorily required Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Report, Architectural designs, tender dossier and Bill of Quantities.
k. That the claim is payable since the project Implementation agreement was signed and approved by the AUDA NEPAD Executive Director on 08th Feb 2024, KNP council Secretary and Principal authorized representative and the Principal Secretary SDVTT on 17th Sep 2023.
l. That unless this honorable court issues orders stopping the defendants respondents from the said activities which amount to breach of contract the plaintiff/applicant will suffer losses considering the fact that it has already performed its part.
m. That the plaintiff applicant will suffer irreparable harm and losses if the defendant/respondents are not restrained as prayed since the Plaintiff’s stands to be replaced.
n. That the application has been made so timely and without any reasonable delay and it is in the interest of justice that the orders be granted as prayed.
3. The said JOB ONDITI MOKAYA swore the annexed affidavit dated 13.5.25 in which he states that he is the sole director of the applicant/ plaintiff and went on to narrate the facts of the case and how the company entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent/ defendant (JOM 2) and performed it’s obligations therein . However the respondents unilaterally placed an advertisement for the same consultancy on 4.2.25 seeking another consultant before paying the applicant it’s dues as per the agreement.
4. The matter came up for certificate of urgency on and the respondents were directed to file a response by 23.5.25 and directions were set for 4.6.25 but the respondents did neither entered any appearance nor filed a replying affidavit within the said time despite service . Ruling was set for 4.7.25. On 10.6.25 the Hon. Attorney general files a memorandum of appearance dated for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondent . On 4.6.25 the ruling was not ready and it was deferred 7.8.25 . On 31.7.25 the respondent filed a replying affidavit of Akola John Otieno sworn on 23.7.25 out of time . The said replying affidavit was sneaked into record as it was filed after directions and ruling date. No leave was sought to file the same had been set and the applicant had no chance to respond to it . I proceed to strike it out for being an abuse of the process of the court. The Application is thus undefended .
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. The applicant seeks for a temporary injunction to restrain respondents and their associates from attempting to replace it to vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/9/2019 pending the hearing of the main suit, a temporary injunction to stop any payments to any person or entity regarding the project without the applicant’s consent. The applicant annexed the said agreement between it and Kisii Polytechnic (JOM- 1 ) and the re-advertisement (JOM -2 )
6. The principles for granting of temporary injunctions in Kenya were laid down case of Giella vs Casman Brown 1973 EA 358 to wit ;
i. Prima facie case with high chances of success ,
ii. Irreparable loss or
iii. Balance of convenience .
The said principles were reiterated in the case Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR)
[2018] KEELC 2424 (KLR) where it was held that the power to grant temporary injunction is at the discretion of the Court. This discretion however should be exercised reasonably, judiciously and on sound legal principles. Before granting a temporary injunction, the court must consider the following principles: --
1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
2) Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted.
3) Where the balance of convenience tilts if the court is in doubt.
7. The existence of a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff is necessary before a temporary injunction can be granted. Prima Facie case has been explained to mean that a serious question to be tried in the suit and in the event of success, if the injunction be not granted the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury. The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by establishing that he has a Prima Facie case with high chances of success . A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were to be believed.
In the case of MRAO LTD VS FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LTD AND 2 OTHERS
It was held that - ‘‘In civil cases a prima facie case is a case in which the material presented to the court ,a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right has apparently been infringed or violated 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, the probability of success of the applicants case upon trial. That is clearly a standard, which is higher than an arguable case.
In the case of Kenleb Cons Ltd vs New Gatitu Service Station Ltd & another[12] Bosire J held that “to succeed in an application for injunction, an applicant must not only make a full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts to the just determination of the application but must also show he has a right legal or equitable, which requires protection by injunction.”
8. The case before this court alleges breach of contract by the respondents . It has emerged that the Plaintiff/Applicant (Telepathy Studio Limited K) entered into a Consultancy Agreement with Kisii National Polytechnic (KNP) on 17th September 2019.The agreement clearly outlined the Plaintiff’s role in providing consultancy services for the SIFA Project, including architectural designs, technical documentation, and Environmental & Social Impact Assessment. The Plaintiff has pleaded that it fulfilled it’s contractual duties, including preparation and submission of required documentation and the agreement and thus it says it is entitled the Plaintiff to 11.5% of the total project budget (EUR 179,245.94) as per the agreement. It accused the respondent / Defendants allegedly breached the agreement by advertising the same consultancy service on 4th Feb 2025 to engage another contractor and attempting to replace or vary the terms of the existing agreement without Plaintiff’s consent. The application is not opposed. The applicant has at this established the existence of the contract , that it performed it’s obligations and that the respondent has now re-advertised the same consultancy before paying it its dues . These facts strongly support a prima facie case of breach of contract.
7. .Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted
The second test for determination is whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss. The following paragraph in Halsbury’s Laws of England[14] is instructive. It reads:-
“It is the very first principle of injunction law that prima facie the court will not grant an injunction to restrain an actionable wrong for which damages are the proper remedy. Where the court interferes by way of an injunction to prevent an injury in respect of which there is a legal remedy, it does so upon two distinct grounds first, that the injury is irreparable and second, that it is continuous. By the term irreparable injury is meant injury which is substantial and could never be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, not injury which cannot possibly be repaired and the fact that the plaintiff may have a right to recover damages is no objection to the exercise of the jurisdiction by injunction, if his rights cannot be adequately protected or vindicated by damages. Even where the injury is capable of compensation in damages an injunction may be granted, if the act in respect of which relief is sought is likely to destroy the subject matter in question” In the case of Paul Gitonga Wanjau v Gathuthi Tea Factory Company Ltd & 2 others [2016] KEHC 7263 (KLR it was stated that where any doubt exists as to the applicants’ right, or if the right is not disputed, but its violation is denied, the court, in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted, takes into consideration the balance of convenience to the parties and the nature of the injury which the Respondent on the other hand, would suffer if the injunction was granted and he should ultimately turn out to be right and that which injury the applicant, on the other hand, might sustain if the injunction was refused and he should ultimately turn out to be right.[17] The burden of proof that the inconvenience which the applicant will suffer if the injunction is refused is greater than that which the respondent will suffer if it is granted lies on the applicant.[18] Thus, the court makes a determination as to which party will suffer the greater harm with the outcome of the motion. If applicant has a strong case on the merits or there is significant irreparable harm, it may influence the balance in favour of granting an injunction.[19]The court will seek to maintain the status quo in determining where the balance on convenience lies.’’This is a consultancy contract whose value is 179 245.94 Euros as per the agreement and thus its loss can be quantified in monetary terms and the anticipated loss to the applicant is reparable by way of damages ..
8.On balance of convenience , in the case of Paul Gitonga Wanjau (supra ) it was held that “as for the balance of convenience, I reiterate what I stated above, "the court makes a determination as to which party will suffer the greater harm with the outcome of the motion. If applicant has a strong case on the merits or there is significant irreparable harm, it may influence the balance in favour of granting an injunction.[20]The court will seek to maintain the status quo in determining where the balance on convenience lies." . The applicant herein has a prima facies case with high chances of success as already found hereinabove , the applicant’s case is that it was awarded the consultancy contract by the respondents and it has fulfilled it’s obligations under the contract and the respondents now want to terminate the contract before paying it and thus the balance of convenience tilts towards granting him the temporary injunction sought . This application has not been challenged , the applicant has shown the it will suffer greater harm that the respondents unless the injunction is not granted. I find that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of granting the temporary injunction.
9. In the upshot the applicant/plaintiff has established grounds for grant a temporary injunction. I proceed to make the following orders :
i. THAT pending Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from engaging in any activity meant advertise in a move to replace any party or vary any terms of the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
ii. THAT рending Hearing and determination of the main suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendant/Respondents, either by themselves, their agents, and/or any other person whomsoever acting under their instructions from making any payments to any person be it a contractor or any other entity with regards to the SIFA Project Consultancy Agreement dated 17/09/2019 without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant.
iii. Costs to the applicant .
iv. The respondent to file and serve a defence within 14 days form today.
v. Mention on 8.10.25 for pretrial direction.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
7.8.25
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAM PLATFORM ON THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 IN THE PRESENCE OF MASOLO FOR THE APPLICANT / PLAINTIFF …N/A ….FOR THE RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT CA : KIPCHIRCHIR