Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherNot stated in judgment

AWO SHARIFF MOHAMED v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF KENYA LTD & 3 OTHERS [2000] KECA 99 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
26 July 2000
RKR.O. KwachSBS.E.O. BosireMKM. Keiwua
137 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let a party withdraw an injunction application before hearing, but ordered them to pay the other side's costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief interlocutory ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi dated 26 July 2000, delivered by a bench of Kwach, Bosire and Keiwua JJA. The applicant, through Mr Wamalwa, sought informal leave to withdraw a pending application for injunction. Mr Ngatia, for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, objected, contending that serious allegations had been made against his clients which the court should consider and determine by ruling. The court considered the withdrawal application and, notwithstanding the objection, permitted the withdrawal, ordering that the application be withdrawn. It assessed costs at Kshs.8,000/= in favour of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, payable within 14 days. No authorities were cited, no issues of law were determined, and the merits of the injunction were never adjudicated. The ruling is of limited precedential value: its only operative proposition is that an appellate court may allow informal withdrawal of an interlocutory application over a respondent's objection, subject to an award of assessed costs. The judgment does not record the case number, the parties' names, or the underlying appeal, and the certification by the Deputy Registrar indicates it is a certified copy of the original.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant should be permitted to withdraw the application for injunction

Key legal issues

#
01

Withdrawal of an application for injunction

Holding

The court granted leave for the application to be withdrawn notwithstanding the respondents' opposition, and awarded assessed costs to the respondents.

Reasoning

Counsel for the applicant sought withdrawal of the injunction application. Counsel for the respondents objected, urging that serious allegations against his clients merited a ruling on the merits. The court, after consideration, was minded to permit withdrawal and ordered it accordingly, with costs assessed at Kshs.8,000/= payable within 14 days. No reasons for preferring withdrawal over adjudication are given in the ruling.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party may be permitted to withdraw an interlocutory application before hearing, even over a respondent's objection that the allegations be adjudicated, subject to payment of the respondents' costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for injunction was withdrawn
  2. 2.Costs assessed at Kshs.8,000/= to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, payable within 14 days

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RK
majority
SB
majority
MK
majority
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in judgment

Relief refused

#

Determination of the injunction application on its merits

The court allowed withdrawal rather than ruling on the merits, rejecting the respondents' objection that the allegations should be adjudicated

p. 2

Costs

Costs assessed at Kshs.8000/= to 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to be paid within 14 days from the date hereof.

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.

Accordingly we order that this application be withdrawn. Costs assessed at Kshs.8000/= to Ist,2nd and 3rd respondents to be paid within 14 days from the date hereof.
p. 2Final orders - withdrawal and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment does not state the case title, appeal number or the parties' names; the coram also contains a typographical error in the third judge's title.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "AWO SHARIFF MOHAMED v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF KENYA LTD & 3 OTHERS [2000] KECA 99 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/99/eng@2000-07-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.