Mureithi v City Council of Nairobi [1979] KECA 1 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a temporary injunction will be refused where money damages can adequately compensate the applicant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the High Court judge exercised his discretion judicially in refusing a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff
- 3.Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted
Key legal issues
#Circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with the grant or refusal of an interim injunction
The court will interfere only where it is shown the discretion of the court below was not exercised judicially.
An interim injunction is a matter of discretion for the judge at first instance. The appellate court does not substitute its own discretion merely because it might have decided differently; it must be shown that the discretion was exercised on wrong principles or not judicially, citing Sargeant v Patel.
Whether damages would be an adequate remedy such that an injunction should be refused
Where the breach complained of, if established, can be compensated in damages and the defendant is financially able to pay them, an interlocutory injunction should not normally be granted.
Relying on Lord Diplock in American Cynamid and Ibrahim v Sheikh Bros Investment Ltd, the court held that adequacy of damages defeats the irreparable-harm condition. The plaintiff's occupation was temporary and terminable at the defendant's discretion, so she would not suffer irreparable injury.
Whether the American Cynamid case displaced the East African test for interlocutory injunctions
The contrary decision in American Cynamid did not alter the settled East African position in Giella v Cassman Brown.
Mustafa JA in Abdul Salim v Okong'o had already held that the Giella conditions remained good law notwithstanding American Cynamid. Madan JA agreed with Lord Diplock's formulation of the object of the interlocutory injunction but saw no cause to depart from the Giella conditions.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court will interfere with a discretionary decision on an interim injunction only if the discretion was not exercised judicially
- The settled conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction in East Africa are probability of success, irreparable harm not adequately compensable in damages, and, if in doubt, the balance of convenience
- Where damages would be an adequate remedy and the defendant can pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal against an order granting or refusing an interim injunction, with leave to appeal granted by the High Court
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from demolishing the kiosk or harassing the plaintiff
The plaintiff could be adequately compensated in damages, including loss of profits, and would not suffer irreparable injury given the temporary and terminable nature of her occupation
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs (costs to the defendant/respondent)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The conditions are (1) the probability of success (2) irreparable harm which would not be adequately compensated for by damages and (3) if in doubt, then on a balance of convenience.
an appeal lies to this Court against an order granting or refusing an interim injunction which is a matter within the discretion of the court below, and this Court will interfere only if it be shown that the discretion has not been exercised judicially
if damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff’s claim appeared to be at that stage.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mara North Holding Limited v Skyship Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7892 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7892 (KLR)12 Nov 2025applied
- Nanji & 2 others v Exobi (Finance House) Limited (Civil Appeal E434 of 2020) [2025] KECA 1119 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1119 (KLR)20 Jun 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mureithi v City Council of Nairobi [1979] KECA 1 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1979). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1979/1/eng@1979-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.