[2010] KEHC 2277 (KLR)
The court found that, although the lease between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was unregistered and thus not enforceable as a lease under the law, there was clear evidence of a contractual relationship between the parties. The 1st defendant admitted the existence of the lease, and the plaintiff had paid...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2277 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bhupendra Taila Jitendra Tailor t/a Soy Safari Resort; Defendant: Soy Country Club (1987) Ltd; Defendant: Asis Hotel Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 32 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- injunction granted
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Unregistered Leases, Landlord Tenant Disputes, Irreparable Harm
- 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
Bhupendra Taila Jitendra Tailor t/a Soy Safari Resort
Plaintiff
Soy Country Club (1987) Ltd
Defendant
Asis Hotel Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his occupation of the suit land pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether an unregistered lease can form the basis for an enforceable right to occupation or protection from eviction.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of irreparable loss.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, although the lease between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was unregistered and thus not enforceable as a lease under the law, there was clear evidence of a contractual relationship between the parties. The 1st defendant admitted the existence of the lease, and the plaintiff had paid substantial sums and was in occupation. The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that there was a risk of irreparable loss to his business if evicted before the suit was determined. Accordingly, the court granted the interlocutory injunction restraining both defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land until final...
Court Disposition
injunction granted
Orders
- An interlocutory injunction is granted restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of the suit land until final determination of the suit.
- Costs of the application to the plaintiff, to be paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
Civil Case 32 of 2008
BHUPENDRA TAILA
JITENDRA TAILOR T/A SOY SAFARI RESORT.......................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SOY COUNTRY CLUB (1987) LTD...................................1ST DEFENDANT
ASIS HOTEL LIMITED.........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
(Application for injunction 14th April 2008)
I.Introduction:
1. The plaintiff herein alleges that he entered into a lease with the
1st defendant for his (defendant No.1)’s land LR Eldoret LR 12186.
He paid 3. 4 Million and daily rent of Kshs. 20,000/- per month.
The period and item of this lease was for 8 years (15. 05 to 30. 4.13)
before the lease expired and unknown to the plaintiff, the
1st defendant allegedly sold the whole parcel of land to the
2nd defendant. This property was transferred to the 2nd defendant.
2. The plaintiff filed this application of 14th April 2008 for an injunction to restrain interference of his occupation of the land by the defendants and from his being evicted.
II.Application dated 14th April, 2008
3. The 1st and 2nd defendant entered this file by way of replying affidavit.
4. The 1st defendant stated that the lease entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was never registered. It therefore had no force of law and did not amount to a lease to be enforceable.
5. That the amount that the 1st defendant was to be paid was not Kshs. 3. 4 million but 10,320,000/- as this had not been done, there was a breach by the plaintiff.
6. The 2nd defendant claims he is a stranger here. I did note the plaintiff filed an amended plaint.
III.Findings.
7. That the said plaintiff herein has shown he had a lease. There was also admission by the 1st defendant that a lease did exist.
8. Though this lease may not have been registered the aspect of a contract between the parties did exist. This is a prima facie indication that the said plaintiff has made out a case to show that there may be irreparable loss to his business.
9. The court herein grants the application for injunction as prayed against both the 1st and 2nd defendant till the finalization of this suit.
10. The costs be to the plaintiff to be paid by defendant 1 and 2.
Dated this 29th day of April 2010 at Eldoret
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocate
Angu Kitigin Advocate instructed by the Firm of M/s Angu Kitigin & Company Advocate
for the Applicant
N. Marube advocate instructed by the Firm of M/s Marube & Company Advocate
for the 1st Defendant
R. Omboto advocate instructed by the Firm of M/s Rioba Omboto & Company Advocate
for the 2nd Defendant