[2011] KEHC 4259 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, as protected tenants, would suffer loss if compelled to pay the increased rent before their appeal is heard, particularly as the increment was nearly 50%. The court held that this potential detriment constituted sufficient demonstration of substantial loss. The court exercised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 4259 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Bartholomew Wanyama; Respondent: Anchor Investments Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 88 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Stay of execution granted pending appeal. Costs to the landlord/respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Controlled Tenancy, Rent Assessment, Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Stay
- 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
Bartholomew Wanyama
Appellant
Anchor Investments Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether adequate security for the due performance of the decree has been offered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, as protected tenants, would suffer loss if compelled to pay the increased rent before their appeal is heard, particularly as the increment was nearly 50%. The court held that this potential detriment constituted sufficient demonstration of substantial loss. The court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution, ordering that the rent payable prior to the Tribunal's judgment continue until the appeal is determined. The issue of security was addressed by maintaining the status quo on rent payments, and costs were awarded to the landlord/respondent.
Court Disposition
Stay of execution granted pending appeal. Costs to the landlord/respondent.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the judgment of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal dated 4 February 2011 is granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The rent payable prior to the judgment of 4 February 2011 shall continue to be paid until finalization of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
63 paragraphs
1. Civil Appeal
2. Civil Practice & Procedure
3. Subject of Subordinate Court
i.Business Premises Rent Tribunal
ii.Assessment of Rent
4. Application 4 March 2011
i.Stay of execution of Judgment dated 4 February 2011 pending appeal
ii.Chairman assessed rental income and came up with an increased sum for payment of rent.
iii.The increased sum be not implemented till the haring of appeal.
5. In reply
i.No evidence to show substantive loss.
ii.No substantial security has been offered.
iii.Rent license reasonable.
6. Held:
a.Stay of execution granted.
b.Costs to Landlord /respondent
7. Case Law:
a.White Rose Drycleaners Ltd v A. H. Adams Investment Ltd,Aganyanya J; Ransley J (no citation given)
b.Commercial Bank of Africa v Mohansons Food Distributors& 2 Others
HCC 130 of 2000 Nairobi
D. K. Maraga (Ag. Judge)
c.I. T. Inamdar & 2 others v Postal Corporation of Kenya
HCCC 1629/2000 Nairobi,
Visram J.
d.Wangethe Mwangi & Another v J. P. Machira T/A Machira & Co. Advocates (2005 )eKLR. CA. 211 of 2003
Githinji, Waki, Deverell JJA.
e.Deepak Shah T/A Azo Sales v Dhavinder Singh Rahal & Another T/A Manjat Building ContractorseKLR KSM 2007
J. R. Karanja J.
8. Advocates
a.M. M. Kinuthia holding brief for J. Kimani instructed by M/s Ondabu & co. Advocates for the appellant/Original Plaintiff
b.J. J. Wachira instructed by M/s Mbugua V. W. & Co. Advocates for the Respondent/Original Defendant
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
CIVIL APPEAL NO.88 OF 2011
BARTHOLOMEW WANYAMA....................................................APPELLANT/ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANCHOR INVESTMENTS LIMITED.................................RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
(Being an appeal arising from the proceedings and judgment of Hon. D. Mochache Esq, the Chairperson of the
Business Premises Rent Tribunal in Tribunal Case No.57 of 2010 delivered on 04 February 2011)
RULING
I.BACKGROUND
1. The relationship between the parties is that of Tenant/Landlord.A case was originally filed in the Business Premises Rent Tribunal by 4 – 5 tenants. The premises in question being LR. No.1 of 822 (in part) situated at Fatima Court on the Junction of Agwings Kodhek and Marcus Gravery Road.
2. The premises being controlled, the landlord had sought to increase the rent payable. The chairperson of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal sitting alone assessed the rent payable for the 4 to 5 tenants premises that increased the rent (4 February 2011)
3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal court, the applicant herein filed an appeal on 4 May 2011 together with a Notice of Mention of the same date seeking orders of stay of execution of the said judgment
II.APPLICATION 4 MARCH 2011
4. The applicant argued that the assessment of rent arrived at by the Chair of the tribunal was excessive. There was no legal basis upon which it was arrived. The parties want to be heard on appeal.
5. The issue of retrospective rent being paid was questioned.
6. In reply, the respondent stated that in an application for stay of execution, the applicant must show there was to be a substantial loss that may occur if stay is not granted. This has not been demonstrated.
7. Further, the applicant must demonstrate that security for stay of execution is offered.
8. Several Case Laws were referred, some touching on the main appeal.
III.FINDINGS
9. The intention of the applicants is to stay further payments of new rent as assessed by the tribunal pending the hearing of their appeal against that decision by the chair of the tribunal.
10. They must therefore show that if they begin to pay the new rent, they would suffer loss. According to the respondent, that loss has not been demonstrated in this case.
11. The tenants/applicants are protected tenants according to statute. It therefore means that the issue of an increase rent would affect their business to their detriment on the grounds that they are so protected. This is sufficient to state that they would indeed suffer loss before they are heard. The increment is almost by 50%.
12. I would accordingly hold that a stay of execution do issue pending the hearing of this appeal before TWO judges.
13. As to security to be issued, this is discretionary by the court. I would order that the rent payable prior to the judgment of 4 February 2011 do continue till the finalization of the appeal.
14. There will be costs to the Landlord/respondent.
RULING DATED THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2011 AT NAIROBI
M. A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates
a.M. M. Kinuthia holding brief for J. Kimani instructed by M/s Ondabu & Co. Advocates for the appellant/Original Plaintiff
b.J. J. Wachira instructed by M/s Mbugua V. W. & Co. Advocates for the Respondent/Original Defendant