Case ID:175940

Megascope Healthcare Kenya Ltd v Nation Media Group Limited & 4 others [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Civil Suit E094 of 2020

Parties:

Megascope Healthcare Kenya Ltd v Nation Media Group Limited, Mutuma Mathiu, The Editoral Director, Nation Media Group Limited, Emmanuel Juma, Managing Director Nation Media Group Limited, Dennis Okari & Godwins Agutu

Date Delivered:

21 May 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Joseph Kiplagat Sergon

Citation:

Megascope Healthcare Kenya Ltd v Nation Media Group Limited & 4 others [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Civil

County:

Nairobi

Case Outcome:

Application declined

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

MILIMANI LAW COURTS

CIVIL SUIT NO. E094 OF 2020

MEGASCOPE HEALTHCARE KENYA LTD...........................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED...............................................1

ST

DEFENDANT

MUTUMA MATHIU, THE EDITORAL DIRECTOR

NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED.............................................2

ND

DEFENDANT

EMMANUEL JUMA, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED............................................3

RD

DEFENDANT

DENNIS OKARI.............................................................................. 4

TH

DEFENDANT

GODWINS AGUTU..........................................................................5

TH

DEFENDANT

RULING

1) In this file and in

Nairobi H.C.C. E136 of 2020 Crown solutions Ltd =vs= Dennis Okari and 3 others

this court issued both mandatory and prohibitory orders of injunction against the defendant. Mr. Kiragu Kimani, learned advocate for the defendants urged this court to make an order directing the plaintiff to give an undertaking as to damages.

2) The plaintiff’s advocate is of the submission that the court having delivered its ruling is rendered functus officio.

3) In this case it is apparent that the court did not make an order directing the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages as a condition for the grant of the order of injunction at the time of delivering its ruling.

4) It is a discretionary order which the court may make in some cases. The parties did not address this court over the issue at the time of arguing the application.

5) The defendants’ advocate urged the court to consider making the order after it delivered its ruling.

6) With respect, I agree with the plaintiff’s advocate that the court is rendered

functus officio

in the matter and it cannot go back to the ruling unless a party seeks to review the same which is not the case in the instant application.

7) In the end, I decline to grant the oral application.

Dated, Signed and Delivered online via Microsoft Teams at Nairobi this 21

st

day of May, 2021.

............................

J. K. SERGON

JUDGE

In the presence of:

………………………… for the Plaintiff

……………………..….. for the Defendants