MOHAMED OSMAN MAALIM vs EURO BANK LIMITED [2000] KECA 271 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal granted Mohamed Osman Maalim an injunction against Euro Bank Limited after the bank's lawyer conceded, with costs deferred to the main appeal.
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 applicant was entitled to the injunction sought in prayer 1 of the notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000 in this Court.
- 2.What costs order should follow on the application.
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant was entitled to an injunction in the terms sought in the notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000 in the intended appeal.
Yes. On the respondent's concession, the Court granted an order in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion without adjudicating the merits, and directed that the costs of the application be costs in the intended appeal.
The ruling contains no reasoned analysis. Its sole basis is the concession made by Mr. Ohaga, counsel for the respondent, that the applicant was entitled to an injunction in the terms sought in the Court of Appeal. The Court accepted the concession and made the order in terms of prayer 1 of the notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000. Rather than awarding costs outright, the Court directed that the costs of the application be costs in the intended appeal, preserving the costs question for the substantive appeal. No authority or statutory provision was cited.
Legal principles established
#- Where the respondent concedes that an applicant is entitled to the interlocutory relief sought in an intended appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant the order in terms of the notice of motion without adjudicating the merits; no principle of law beyond the operative orders is laid down.
Court orders
#- 1.An order in terms of prayer 1 in the notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000 (the injunction as sought in this Court).
- 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the intended appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C. No. 73 of 2000
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment. The application was brought in the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in an intended appeal from the High Court (Civil Application No. NAI.83 of 2000 (UR. 2000), by notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000), but the ruling cites no constitutional or statutory provision.
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.
Mr. Ohaga for the respondent concedes that the applicant is entitled to an injunction in terms as sought in this Court.
There will therefore be an order in terms of prayer 1 in the notice of motion dated 21st March, 2000.
Costs of this application will be costs in the intended appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "MOHAMED OSMAN MAALIM vs EURO BANK LIMITED [2000] KECA 271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Application No. NAI.83 of 2000 (UR. 2000). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/271/eng@2000-09-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.