“It is my humble view that considering the object of an interim, injunction and the
nature of proceedings at which it is considered, a more realistic and fair condition
would be to satisfy the Court that there is a serious question to be tried rather than a
prima facie case with a probability of success; for as Lord Diplock pointed out in the
American Cyanamid Case (supra) in the house of Lords,
The use of such expressions as a “probability” “a prima facie case” or “a
strong prima facie case” in the context of the exercise of a discretionary
power to grant an interlocutory injunction leads to confusion as to the object
of this form of temporary relief. The Court no doubt must be satisfied that the
claim is not frivolous or vexatious in other words that there is a serious
question to be tried.”
Halsbury‟s Laws of England 4th Edn vol. 24 para 858 also has this to say on the serious
questions to be tried:
“855. Serious questions to be tried. On an application for an interlocutory injunction
the Court must be satisfied that there are serious questions to be tried. The material
available to Court at the hearing of the application must disclose that the Plaintiff has
real prospects for succeeding in his claim for a permanent in/unction at the trial.”
(emphasis mine).
This proposition has been followed in a number of cases. For instance in HCCS No. 2 17/94
— Muhamed Yahu —Vs- Abdur Khamis Ouma J held inter alia that:
“(1) There is no rule that an Applicant for a temporary injunction must first establish
that he has a prima facie case because this would lead to trial of the suit without
evidence to establish it. It is enough to show that there are triable issues to be
investigated on either side and that the suit was not frivolous. The Applicant had
6