Magero v Odaka & 10 Others (Civil Application 1166 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The single Justice dismissed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain payments arising from Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case: his supporting affidavit did not aver that the intended appeal had a likelihood of success, and the appeal itself was invalid because the order appealed from was made under s.64(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is not appealable as of right, and no leave to appeal had been sought. No irreparable damage was shown, since the monies were to be paid to a company of which the applicant is a director and shareholder. The court declined to consider the balance of convenience.

Outcome

Application for a temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The 9th Respondent, Bumero Estates Limited, was incorporated in 2004 with original shareholders including the late Romano Masiga, Alex Wejuli and Gabriel Lawrence Owino. Under a settlement in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007, the 9th Respondent was to be paid about Shs 23,128,000,000 by the Attorney General, of which a balance of about Shs 20,128,000,000 remained outstanding. Disputes over the company's shareholding led to company causes and a court-directed reconstitution of the company register, with administrators of the deceased shareholders' estates entered as shareholders. The applicant, an administrator of the estate of the late Gabriel Owino and a director of the 9th Respondent, was aggrieved by a shareholders' meeting held on 21 September 2022 and filed Miscellaneous Application No. 214 of 2023, which the High Court dismissed on 20 October 2023. Learning that the Attorney General was about to make payments to the 1st to 9th Respondents, the applicant filed a notice of appeal and sought a temporary injunction in the Court of Appeal to restrain those payments pending the intended appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success on the intended appeal.
2. Whether the intended appeal was valid where the order appealed from was made under Civil Procedure Act s.64(c) and (e) and no leave to appeal had been sought.
3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage that could not be compensated in damages if the temporary injunction was not granted.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.6(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.64(c)
• Civil Procedure Act s.64(e)
• Civil Procedure Act s.76(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.40

Cases cited (2)

• Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.