Notice of Motion to discharge orders of inhibition and injunction following dismissal of suit (2nd defendant/applicant v plaintiff/respondent)
The bottom line
#Once a Kenyan court dismisses a lawsuit, temporary orders blocking land deals—like injunctions and inhibitions—automatically lose their force and can be discharged.
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 orders of inhibition and injunction issued on 14th October 2014 should be discharged or set aside following the dismissal of the suit on 17th April 2018
Key legal issues
#Whether interlocutory orders of inhibition and injunction survive the dismissal of the substantive suit
They do not survive; they must be discharged once the suit is dismissed
The orders of inhibition and injunction were granted on 14th October 2014 pending hearing and determination of the suit. The suit was dismissed on 17th April 2018 by Mbugua J under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution after notice to the parties. Since the orders were incidental to the suit and its determination, no basis remained for them to continue in force once the suit had been dismissed.
Whether an unopposed application served on the respondent should be allowed
Yes; the respondent was duly served but filed no response, and the application was found merited
Although the respondent's advocates (M/s Otieno & Co Advocates) were duly served, no response was filed. The court proceeded to determine the application on the material before it, agreeing with the applicant that the dismissal of the suit removed the foundation for the interlocutory orders.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory orders such as inhibition and injunction granted pending hearing and determination of a suit lapse and cannot remain in force once the suit has been dismissed
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd defendant's application dated 9th May 2022 is allowed
- 2.The orders of inhibition and injunction granted on 14th October 2014 are discharged/set aside
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court over its interlocutory orders following dismissal of the suit under Order 17 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 suit having been dismissed on 17th April 2018, I do agree with the applicant that there is no basis for the said orders of inhibition and injunction to remain in force.
In the result, I find that the 2nd defendant's application dated 9th May 2022 is merited and the same is hereby allowed but with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The formal name and case number of the underlying suit and of the application are not stated on the face of the judgment; only the source URL (kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/234112/) identifies the file
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Notice of Motion to discharge orders of inhibition and injunction following dismissal of suit (2nd defendant/applicant v plaintiff/respondent)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 9th May 2022 (suit dismissed on 17th April 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2253/eng@2022-07-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.