[2004] KEHC 1394 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 1394 (KLR)

The court held that the 1st Defendant could not be liable for breach of the Sale Agreement between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, as it was not a party to that agreement and had no notice of the sale or transfer at the time of payment. The Lease Agreement between the 1st and 2nd Defendants remained in force,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 1394 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Excell Enterprises Ltd; Defendant: Block Hotels Ltd; Defendant: Norfolk Developments Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 357 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant; suit against the 1st Defendant dismissed with costs.
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Lease Assignment, Sale of Land, Rent Payment Dispute, Privity of Contract
Source Language
en
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Lease Assignment Sale of Land Rent Payment Dispute Privity of Contract

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excell Enterprises Ltd

Plaintiff

Block Hotels Ltd

Defendant

Norfolk Developments Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was liable for paying rent to the 2nd Defendant after the sale and transfer of the premises to the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant was obligated to forward the rent received from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff after the sale and transfer of the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 1st Defendant could not be liable for breach of the Sale Agreement between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, as it was not a party to that agreement and had no notice of the sale or transfer at the time of payment. The Lease Agreement between the 1st and 2nd Defendants remained in force, and without a legal assignment of the lease to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant was under no legal obligation to pay rent to the Plaintiff. However, the 2nd Defendant, having received rent after selling and transferring the premises to the Plaintiff, had no legal claim to retain the payment and was obligated to forward it to the Plaintiff. Judgment was therefore entered for the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant; suit against the 1st Defendant dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Suit against the 1st Defendant is dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant for Ksh.1,050,000 with interest from 1st October 1999 until payment in full.