[2017] KEHC 9177 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the preservation of the respondent's movable assets pending arbitration, as there was evidence of rent arrears and imminent danger of irreparable loss due to third-party executions against the respondent. The respondent did not oppose the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9177 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kamulamba Sugar Company Limited; Respondent: VIL Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 36 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Preservation Orders Pending Arbitration
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Arbitration Proceedings, Lease Disputes, Preservation of Assets
- 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
Kamulamba Sugar Company Limited
Applicant
VIL Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Preservation Orders Pending Arbitration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders preserving the respondent's movable assets pending arbitration proceedings.
- 2 Whether there is imminent danger of irreparable loss to the applicant if the orders are not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the preservation of the respondent's movable assets pending arbitration, as there was evidence of rent arrears and imminent danger of irreparable loss due to third-party executions against the respondent. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the applicant's evidence was uncontroverted. The court exercised its discretion to grant the orders sought to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending arbitration, ensuring that the applicant's claim would not be rendered nugatory.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The respondent's movable assets as particularized in the application shall be held as lien for rent arrears pending the hearing and determination of the intended arbitration.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2017
KAMULAMBA SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED....PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
VIL LIMITED……………….…………..…DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
Introduction
1. The application for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 08. 06. 2017 brought pursuant to Sections 1A 1B, 3, 3A and 63B of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. The applicant is seeking for orders to hold on to the respondent’s movable assets as particularized on the face of the application pending the hearing and determination of an intended arbitration. The application is based on the grounds that the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the Respondent for the lease of land parcel Registration No. South Kabras/Chemuche/905 for a period of thirty 30months starting the 1. 12. 2013 at a rent of kshs.60,000/= per month.
2. The payment terms were set out in the lease agreement dated 30. 10. 2013. The applicant avers that the respondent has since failed and/or refused to pay rent and now is in arrears of kshs1,800,000/=. The applicant has served the respondent with a notice aiming at instituting arbitration Proceedings as per the terms of the lease agreement. The applicant states that since third parties are executing decrees and have attached the assets of the Respondent he may not recover the outstanding rent unless the respondent’s movable assets as particularized are held as lien for rent arrears.
3. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Tatuli Mbasu one of the Directors of the applicant company.
Determination
4. The application herein was certified urgent on the 13. 06. 2017 and the court ordered that t the same b served for inter parties hearing on the 21. 06. 2017. It is on record that the application was duly served on the 15. 06. 2017. The respondent has not filed any response or objection to the said application. This means that the application is not opposed. The applicant’s counsel relied on the grounds on the face of the application as well as the affidavit in support. She urged this court to grant the prayers sought.
5. Since the application is not opposed, and further, the applicant having demonstrated that there is imminent danger that it will suffer irreparable loss if the respondent’s assets are not held in lien for the rent arrears pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings as demonstrated by the applicant, the application is allowed in its entirety. Costs shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court at Kakamega this 20th day of July, 2017
RUTH N. SITATI
JUDGE
In the presence of;-
Mrs. Muleshe holding brief for M/S Rauto (present)………Plaintiff/Applicant
N/A ………………………………………………Defendant/Respondent
Polycap…………………………………………………Court Assistant