Verma v Cooperative Bank Kenya Limited (Miscellaneous Application 509 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 90 (23 May 2024)

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [CIVIL DIVISIO]

# **MISC. APPLICATION NO. 509 OF 2024**

## [ARISING FROM MA 508 OF 2024]

#### [ARISING FROM MA NO. 507 OF 2024]

#### [ALL ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 422 OF 2020]

SHARAN PAL VERMA============================= APPLICANT

#### VERSUS

COOPERATIVE BANK KENYA LTD ================ RESPONDENT

## **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE EMMANUEL BAGUMA**

## **RULING**

This application is by notice of motion under section 33 of the judicature Act, section 98 of the CPA, order 52 rules 1 & 3 of the CPR seeking for orders that; -

- *a) An interim order doth issue against the Respondent its agents/servants or assignees restraining them from impounding the vehicles pending the determination of the Applicant's substantive Application.* - *b) Costs of this Application be provided for.*

The application is supported by the affidavit of Sharan Pal Verma the applicant whose details are on record but briefly states that;-

- 1. I am the Plaintiff in civil suit No. 422 of 2020 - 2. The Respondent claims to be the owner of the Motor Vehicles which are subject of civil suit No. 422 of 2020. - 3. The Respondent is in the process of impounding the motor vehicles with the help of Interpol Police. - 4. The Police gave a directive that the vehicles be impounded and forwarded to Interpol for onward management. - 5. The Respondent's actions of impounding the vehicles affects my interest.

- 6. There is imminent danger that the Respondent may attach and impound the vehicles where I have interests. - 7. I filed MA No. 508 of 2024 for temporary injunction. - 8. There is an iminate threat as the Respondents intend to impound the vehicles and if not restrained the same will render the application for temporary injunction and the main suit nugatory.

#### **Representation**

Counsel Deepa Verma represented the Applicant.

At hearing, counsel was directed to file written submissions for this court's consideration.

#### **Submissions by Counsel for the Applicant**

Counsel submitted that Order 50 rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Amendment Rules gives court powers to hear this application exparte in instances where serving the Respondent would cause undue delay and defeat the object of this application.

Counsel submitted that Applicant's vehicles are the subject of the main application and the civil suit from which these applications arise and the same are under imminent danger as the Respondent and its agents are attaching the said vehicles and if they are not restrained the main application will be rendered nugatory. He referred to the case of *Reynolds Construction Company (U) Ltd Vs AG & 2 Others Misc. Application No. 99 of 2022*

Counsel cited the case of **Hwang Sunga Industries Ltd Vs Tajdin Hussein & 2 ors SCCA No. 19 of 2008** which held that;-

"*For an application for an interim stay, it suffices to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application.*

*It is not necessary to pre-empt consideration of matters necessary in deciding whether or not to grant the substantive application for stay."*

Counsel concluded that it is necessary for this court to grant the interim order to protect the applicant's interest as stated under paragraph 10 of her affidavit in support and preserve the status quo.

## **Determination of court.**

Considerations for the grant of an interim order of interim injunction are whether there is a substantive application pending and whether there is a serious threat before hearing of the substantive application. *See Hwang Sung Industries Ltd vs. Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (SCCA NO. 19 of 2008*

In summary, there are three conditions that an applicant must satisfy to justify the grant of an interim order:

## 1. *A Competent suit or cause;*

## *A substantive application for temporary injunction; and*

## 2. *A serious threat."*

In the instant case, the applicant filed the main suit CS No. 422 of 2020 claiming ownership of the motor vehicles in issue and also an application MA No. 507 of 2024 to add the Respondent to the suit as a defendant. The applicant further filed an application for temporary injunction which is still pending in this court.

This court has examined annexure B attached to the applicant's affidavit in support of the application which is a Police letter from Directorate of Interpol and International Relations dated 21 st May 2024 directing the Regional Police Commander Busoga East Region to trace and impound the suit vehicles and have them forwarded to Interpol for onward Management.

The applicant has demonstrated that there is an imminent threat of impounding the suit Vehicles and taken to Kenya which will render the application for permanent injunction and the main suit nugatory.

The Interim Order sought by the applicant is necessary to preserve the status quo until the substantive application for a temporary injunction is heard and determined. See **Guiliano Gariggio vs. Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 03 of 2013).**

In the circumstances of the instant application, I do find that the grant of an interim order to restrain the respondent and his agents from impounding the suit Vehicles is necessary pending determination of the main application for temporary injunction.

#### **Conclusion.**

This application is granted with the following orders; -

- **c) An interim order is hereby issued against the Respondent its agents/servants or assignees restraining them from impounding the vehicles Registration Number KCU 460H, KCU 469H, KCU 473H, KCU 472H, KCW 524H, KCU 307A, KCU 459H, KCU 314A, KCU 321A, KCU 349A pending the determination of the Applicant's substantive Application for temporary injunction on 20th June 2024 at 11 am.** - **1. Costs of this application will be in the cause.**

Dated, signed, sealed and delivered by email on this **23rd** day of **May 2024**.

Emmanuel Baguma Judge.