REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 289 OF 2019

ANTI-COUNTERFEIT AUTHORITY......................APPELLANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

PETER MUGUCIA....................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
ROSE THAARA NJUE............................................................2ND RESPONDENT
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY......3RD RESPONDENT
CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA.............................................4TH RESPONDENT
KYOCERA CORPORATION................................................5TH RESPONDENT
SEIKO EPSON KABUSHIKI KAISHA................................6TH RESPONDENT
HALLIDAY FINCH LIMITED..............................................7TH RESPONDENT

Ruling

1. The appellant/applicant in the present instance has brought forth the Notice of Motion dated 30th May, 2019. The Motion stands supported by the grounds set out on its face as well as the facts deponed to in the affidavit sworn by Naylor Mukofu. The applicant is seeking the substantive order for a stay of the proceedings in CMCC NO. 45 OF 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal currently before this court.

2. Naylor Mukofu who is the Chief Legal Officer of the applicant stated that on the premise of various complaints made by the 7th respondent on behalf of the 3rd to 6th respondents as against the 1st and 2nd respondents herein in respect to the purported sale of counterfeit products, the applicant proceeded to investigate the said complaints, later seizing a variety of items belonging to the 1st and 2nd respondents.

3. It is further stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents subsequently instituted a suit against the applicant being CMCC NO. 45 OF 2019 (Peter Mugucia & Another v The Anti-Counterfeit Agency) on the allegation of wrongful seizure of their goods and for which they are claiming the total sum of Kshs.18,571,400/= being the value of the seized goods.

4. The deponent asserted that resultantly, the applicant filed an application on 3rd April, 2019 which application sought to enjoin the 3rd to 7th respondents in the suit, adding that soon thereafter, the 3rd to 6th respondents filed a similar application on 11th April, 2019.

Download Full Ruling (PDF, 34 KB)