Bhanoo Shashikant Jai v Multi Options Limited (in Receivership) & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal upheld interim orders protecting property during receivership, but struck down mandatory orders granted without special circumstances.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Judge properly exercised her discretion in granting interlocutory injunctive relief
The Judge was alive to and correctly applied the Giella v Cassman Brown principles; the Court would not fault her assessment of prima facie case and irreparable injury
The Judge considered the effect of the transfer of the properties after the appointment of a receiver, whether the properties were subject to the debentures, and whether the company could dispose of them during receivership. She also found that the debenture holder's loss could not adequately be compensated by damages. These were relevant considerations, so the Court could not interfere with that exercise of discretion.
Whether a mandatory injunction could issue at an interlocutory stage
The Judge erred in granting mandatory orders (delivery of title documents and removal of caveat) without establishing special circumstances; those orders were set aside
The Court reviewed Locabail and domestic authority confirming that a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage requires special circumstances and clear cases. On review of the ruling, the Judge never considered whether special circumstances existed, and the 1st respondent did not demonstrate any. To that extent only the appellate court was entitled to interfere.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court may only interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion where the judge misdirected herself in law, misapprehended the facts, considered extraneous matters, failed to consider relevant factors, or where the decision is plainly wrong
- A mandatory injunction ought not to be granted at an interlocutory stage in the absence of special circumstances, and then only in clear cases
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed to the extent that orders numbers 4 and 5 of the orders granted by the High Court are set aside
- 2.Orders numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 granted by the lower court remain in place pending the hearing and determination of the suit in the High Court
- 3.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal as well as the costs of the application in the High Court
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Courts
- MCC Civil Suit No. 718 of 2008
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory decision of the High Court (appeal as of right against interim injunctive orders)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya Union Of Journalists & Allied Workers v Nation Media Group Limited [2014] KEELRC 589 (KLR)[2014] KEELRC 589 (KLR)13 Feb 2014
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bhanoo Shashikant Jai v Multi Options Limited (in Receivership) & 2 others", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal Number 240 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/48/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.