[2013] KEHC 6204 (KLR)
The court found that, on a prima facie basis, the material before it—including correspondences, the draft lease prepared by the Defendant's advocates, and the Plaintiff's possession and occupation of the premises—strongly indicated the existence of an agreement between the parties. The Plaintiff had acted on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6204 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Glory Driving School; Defendant: Phoneart Solutions Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 247 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interim Relief (temporary Injunction)
- Outcome
- interim injunction granted
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Lease Agreements, Interim Injunctions, Possession of Premises
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Glory Driving School
Plaintiff
Phoneart Solutions Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interim Relief (temporary Injunction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there existed a binding lease agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant for Shop No. 2 in Diamond Building.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interim injunctive relief to prevent eviction pending the determination of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, on a prima facie basis, the material before it—including correspondences, the draft lease prepared by the Defendant's advocates, and the Plaintiff's possession and occupation of the premises—strongly indicated the existence of an agreement between the parties. The Plaintiff had acted on the agreement by taking possession, renovating, and obtaining trading licenses. The Defendant's assertion that the correspondences were mere invitations to treat was not supported by substantive evidence rebutting the Plaintiff's factual claims. In the interests of justice and to preserve the status quo, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from evicting...
Court Disposition
interim injunction granted
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiff from Shop No. 2, Diamond Building, L.R. No. 209/895, pending disposal of the application.
- Costs will be in the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 247 OF 2013
GLORY DRIVING SCHOOL ………………….…..……..….…...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PHONEART SOLUTIONS LTD....………..……......….......…DEFENDANT
+RULING ON INTERIM RELIEF
1. In this suit the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant to its agreement to give the Plaintiff a lease of 5 years and one month for Shop No. 2 in the building commonly known as Diamond Building standing on L.R. No. 209/895. It is the Plaintiff’s case that pursuant to the said agreement the Plaintiff took possession of the premises from the outgoing tenant who happened to be the Plaintiff’s sister company, renovated the premises and took out trading licenses upon the premises.
It is the Plaintiff’s further case that at the Defendant’s request it even executed a formal lease prepared by the Defendant’s own advocates, which formal lease the Defendant subsequently refused to execute claiming that it had withdrawn the offer of the lease.
2. Together with the plaint the Plaintiff filed notice of motion dated 12th June 2013 seeking a temporary injunction to protect it from eviction pending disposal of the suit. The application was placed before me on 14th June 2013 under certificate of urgency and I directed that the same be served for mention inter partes on 20th June 2013.
3. On 20th June 2013 both parties were represented by counsel. The Defendant’s learned counsel sought some time to put in papers and the matter was stood over to 28th June 2013 for further mention. On that date I did not sit and the parties appeared before Ougo, J and the learned Judge placed the matter for mention before me on 1st July 2013.
4. On 1st July 2013 the issue of interim relief was canvassed before me.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels. I have also read the Defendant’s replying affidavit filed on 28th June 2013. It is deponed at paragraph 6 thereof that the correspondences between the parties “were mere written invitations to treat, and were never meant to be...an invitation to offer nor an offer, and therefore the Plaintiff cannot purport to enforce mere correspondences that do not meet the threshold required in law...”
5. Apart from that averment there is really no answer to the specific issues of fact pleaded by the Plaintiff in the plaint and in the affidavit sworn in support of the application.
6. I have seen the various correspondences exchanged between the parties (both surface and e-mail) and the lease agreement which is signed by the Plaintiff. Prima facie, and without deciding the issues at this stage, the available material now before the court strongly points to the existence of an agreement between the parties upon which the Defendant’s own counsels prepared a formal lease agreement upon instruction by the Defendant, which was forwarded to the Plaintiff for execution. The Plaintiff duly executed it and returned it to the Defendant for execution as required.
7. Again prima facie, the Plaintiff appears to have taken possession and occupation of the premises from the outgoing tenant and took out necessary trading licenses upon the premises. It is still in possession and occupation.
8. In the circumstances I hold that an interim injunction as sought in prayer 2 of the application will be in the interests of justice and I hereby grant the same. It will remain in place until the application is disposed of. Costs will be in the application. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2013
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013