[2023] KEBPRT 1215 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the parties have been engaged in prolonged litigation over the tenancy and rent payment issues. Applying the established principles for granting temporary injunctions, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Tribunal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEBPRT 1215 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Cedar Hospital Limited; Respondent: Hasham Lalji Properties Limited; Respondent: Sedco Consultants Limited; Respondent: Razor Sharp Auctioneers
- Court
- Business Premises Rent Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case E040 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction allowed in terms of prayer 2.
- Judges
- P May
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Temporary Injunctions, Rent Payment Disputes
- 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
Cedar Hospital Limited
Applicant
Hasham Lalji Properties Limited
Respondent
Sedco Consultants Limited
Respondent
Razor Sharp Auctioneers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with its occupation of the premises pending hearing of the reference.
- 2 Whether the applicant has satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the parties have been engaged in prolonged litigation over the tenancy and rent payment issues. Applying the established principles for granting temporary injunctions, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had met the threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Tribunal considered the affidavits and submissions and determined that, in the circumstances, it was just to allow the application in terms of prayer 2, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive reference. The Tribunal directed the parties to file and exchange witness statements and documents within seven days and to set the matter down for hearing on a priority basis. Each...
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction allowed in terms of prayer 2.
Orders
- The parties to file and exchange witness statements and documents they shall seek to rely on at the hearing of the reference in a single bundle duly paginated within 7 days.
- The application dated 28th February, 2023 is allowed in terms of prayer 2.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Cedar Hospital Limited v Hasham Lalji Properties Limited & 2 others (Tribunal Case E040 of 2023) [2023] KEBPRT 1215 (KLR) (9 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEBPRT 1215 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Tribunal Case E040 of 2023
P May, Member
October 9, 2023
Between
Cedar Hospital Limited
Tenant
and
Hasham Lalji Properties Limited
1st Respondent
Sedco Consultants Limited
2nd Respondent
Razor Sharp Auctioneers
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. A mere perusal of the pleadings filed by both parties reveal that the protagonists herein have engaged in protracted litigation in various fora including this Honourable Tribunal. The principle of finality in litigation seems to be strange to the parties herein as they engage in a vicious cycle of filing applications before the various dispute resolution platforms. The pronouncements made by the judicial bodies that have preceded the Tribunal seems to have emboldened the parties while the underlying intention was to resolve the disputes and give the parties some compass as they reflect on the best approach of resolving the disputes without any further casualties.
Introduction 2. The tenant approached the Tribunal by filing the application dated 28th February, 2023 seeking for orders of temporary injunction against the landlord and the other respondents. The application is premised on the grounds set out in the supporting affidavit sworn by Dr. Charles Jakait. The tenant stated that it had been meeting their contractual obligations pursuant to the various orders that have been issued by the various judicial bodies.
3. The parties are in agreement that the tenant had been in occupation of the demised premises and it was not until 2020 when the Tribunal delivered a judgement allowing for increment in rent. The parties dispute the payment of rent as the tenant stated that it had been paying rent directly to the landlord. The estate agent indicated that there was an order made by the High Court in Nairobi HCCC E148 of 2019 which directed that it was the sole entity charged with receiving rent.
4. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed elaborate replying affidavit stating the chronology of the dispute and the directions that have been given by the various courts. They maintained that the proclamation notices issued are proper and that the same should be allowed.
5. The parties elected to canvass the application by way of written submissions. I have considered the same and would proceed as follows:
6. The present application as stated above is one for orders of temporary injunction. The requirements for the grant of temporary injunctions are now well settled as were stated in the celebrated case of; Giella v Cassman Brown[1973] EA 358 and as were reiterated in the case of; Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others CA No.77 of 2012 [2014]eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that;“in an interlocutory injunction application the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to a, establishes his case only at a prima facie level, b, demonstrates irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted and c, ally any doubts as to b, by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour.These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction interlocutory or permanent. it is established that all the above three conditions and states are to be applied as separate distinct and logical hurdles which the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially”
7. I have considered the affidavits on record and the corresponding annextures against the above set conditions. As stated at the opening paragraph, the parties have been engaged in a vicious litigation which has had impact on the trajectory of the proceedings.
8. In view of the forgoing, I am inclined to allow the application in terms of prayer 2 and direct that the parties do ventilate the issues raised during the hearing of the reference.
9. In the end, I shall issue the following orders:a.The parties to file and exchange witness statements and the documents they shall seek to rely on at the hearing of the reference in a single bundle duly paginated within 7 days hereof.b.The application dated 28th February, 2023 is allowed in terms of prayer 2. c.The parties to take a hearing date on priority basis.d.Each party shall bear their own costs.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023HON. P. MAYMEMBER9. 10. 2023In the absence of the parties