[2018] KEHC 7994 (KLR)
The court found that the orders issued on 14/12/2017 were explicit in requiring the parties to maintain the status quo, specifically the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises, while negotiations continued. Any action by the defendant to levy distress or interfere with the plaintiff's occupation constituted a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 7994 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Al-Riaz International Limited; Defendant: Ganjoni Properties Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 158 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Interim orders granted in favour of the plaintiff; reinstatement to premises and restriction on transfer of vehicles ordered.
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Status Quo Orders, Breach of Court Orders, Distress for Rent, Constructive Eviction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Al-Riaz International Limited
Plaintiff
Ganjoni Properties Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant breached the court order maintaining the status quo regarding the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to the premises pending the hearing of the application.
- 3 Whether a restriction should be registered against the transfer of vehicles allegedly sold in breach of court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the orders issued on 14/12/2017 were explicit in requiring the parties to maintain the status quo, specifically the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises, while negotiations continued. Any action by the defendant to levy distress or interfere with the plaintiff's occupation constituted a breach of those orders. The court emphasized that such breaches undermine the authority of the court and cannot be tolerated. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate reinstatement of the plaintiff to the premises and directed the police to provide security to prevent public disturbance. Additionally, the court ordered a restriction against the transfer of any vehicles...
Court Disposition
Interim orders granted in favour of the plaintiff; reinstatement to premises and restriction on transfer of vehicles ordered.
Orders
- The plaintiff shall be reinstated to the suit premises forthwith and before midday on 30/1/2018.
- The OCS Central Police Station shall provide security to ensure no public disturbance ensues during reinstatement.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 158 OF 2014
AL-RIAZ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED...........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GANJONI PROPERTIES LIMITED................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. On 14. 12. 2017 this court, after being informed that parties werenegotiating but could not conclude because the plaintiffs director was out of Kenya, adjourned the matter and stood it over to the 25/1/2018 and implored the parties to meaningful engage and negotiate. The court said:-
“The tenancy remains and good faith should prevail.
Prevailing orders be maintained till the hearing date”.
2. It would appear that there were some steps taken by the defendantsometimes on or about the 7/01/2018 by which the plaintiff alleges it was constructively evicted while the defendant says it only levied distress and has sold the distrained goods on 20/1/2018.
3. On 16/1/2018, the file was placed before judge Njoki Mwangi whoordered that the status quo ordered on 14/12/2017 and prevailing them be maintained, the same Judge reiterated same orders on the 22/1/2018.
4. Today before the application dated 15/01/2018 could be heard Mr.Mutiso for the plaintiff sought the courts intervention that director be given on the alleged forceful or contractive eviction for having been conducted in violation of the court orders. This is indeed a serious allegation.
5. I proceed from the learning that a party in breach of a court orderdeserved no audience from the court[1]. I entertain no doubt, just as Judge Njoki didn’t on 22/1/2018, that the orders of 14/12/2017 are clear on their terms.
6. The parties were to preserve the status quo being the occupation ofthe suit premises by the plaintiff even as the parties negotiated. Any distress or interference with that position is clearly in breach of the court orders and should not be entertained but must be discouraged. For that reason, and in the interim I direct that the plaintiff be reinstated to the premises forthwith and before midday on 30/1/2018 and the OCS Central Police Station do provide security to ensure no public disturbance ensues.
7. I further order that pending the hearing and determination of theapplication dated 15/1/2017 there be registered a restriction against the transfer of any vehicles taken away and allegedly sold.
8. This matter shall be heard on the 20/2/2018. Let parties file any submissions they may wish to file on the application dated 15/01/2018.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 29th day of January 2018.
P.J.O. OTIENO
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of Mr. Kinyua for the defendant and Mr. Mutiso for the plaintiff.
P.J.O. Otieno J
29/01/2018
[1] Dorothy Kwonyike vs Victoria Commercial Bank Ltd [2000] eKLR relying on the Pharmacy and Poisons Board -vs- Sipri Pharmaceuticals Ltd.