PULIN HARAKCHAND SHAH vs SOUTHERN CREDIT BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED [1999] KECA 33 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal stopped a High Court ruling from taking effect, granting an injunction protecting Shah until his appeal against Southern Credit Banking Corporation is heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Grant of an injunction pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The court granted the injunction as prayed, being satisfied that the requisite conditions under rule 5(2)(b) were fulfilled.
The ruling is a brief ex tempore disposition. After hearing counsel for both parties, the court expressed satisfaction that the conditions for exercising its discretion under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules were met, and accordingly issued the injunction sought in prayer 1 of the motion pending the intended appeal. No extended reasoning is set out.
Legal principles established
#- An injunction pending appeal may issue under rule 5(2)(b) where the court is satisfied that the requisite conditions for the exercise of its discretion are fulfilled.
Court orders
#- 1.An injunction to issue as prayed in prayer 1 of the Notice of Motion dated 10th May, 1999, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 759 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "PULIN HARAKCHAND SHAH vs SOUTHERN CREDIT BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED [1999] KECA 33 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1999). Civil Application No. Nai 109 of 1999 (40/99 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1999/33/eng@1999-05-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.