[2014] KEELC 622 (KLR)
The court found that, following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal, litigation had concluded and the respondent was entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment, including possession of the premises. However, recognizing the potential disruption to the applicant's business and employees, the court exercised...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELC 622 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kasturi Limited; Respondent: Nyeri Wholesalers Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 109 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Vacation of Premises
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution granted in part; limited stay to vacate premises by 8th November 2014; outstanding rent to be paid by 31st October 2014; each party to bear its own costs.
- Judges
- A Ombwayo
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Eviction Proceedings, Stay of Execution, Mesne Profits
- 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
Kasturi Limited
Applicant
Nyeri Wholesalers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Vacation of Premises
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a further stay of execution after dismissal of the applicant's appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution to allow time to vacate the premises and settle outstanding obligations.
- 3 Whether granting a stay would amount to an extension of the lease agreement which has lapsed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, following the dismissal of the applicant's appeal, litigation had concluded and the respondent was entitled to enjoy the fruits of judgment, including possession of the premises. However, recognizing the potential disruption to the applicant's business and employees, the court exercised discretion to grant a limited stay, allowing the applicant until 8th November 2014 to vacate the premises and requiring payment of outstanding rent by 31st October 2014. The court declined to extend the lease or grant an indefinite stay, holding that the lease had lapsed and that further extension would be beyond its jurisdiction. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution granted in part; limited stay to vacate premises by 8th November 2014; outstanding rent to be paid by 31st October 2014; each party to bear its own costs.
Orders
- Applicant to vacate the premises by 8th November 2014.
- Applicant to pay outstanding rent on or before 31st October 2014.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
CIVIL CASE NO.109 OF 2009
KASTURI LIMITED........................................................ PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NYERI WHOLESALERS LIMITED.................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The applicant is a limited liability company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act Cap 486 laws of Kenya. The respondent is also a limited liability company duly incorporated under cap 486 Laws of Kenya.
The dispute herein revolves on a tenancy relationship between the two which has not been good due to an alleged fraud or review of the lease agreement, alleged rent arrears and attempted eviction.
In the Notice of Motion dated 31/7/2014 the applicant prays for an order that there be a stay of the order issued herein on 9/7/2010 pending the vacancy of the premises on 31/12/2014. The application is grounded on the facts that the applicant had filed an appeal which was dismissed on 30th July 2014. The defendants who are partial decree holders are likely to commence eviction proceedings now that the said stay orders have since collapsed. The applicant needs time to arrange for an alternative premises and clear the stock and the debt of the suppliers and that the respondent is likely to forward the matter to the auctioneers to execute who will swiftly proceed with execution. The application is brought without delay and that the applicant stands to suffer substantial and hefty loss unless an order for stay is granted.
The application is opposed by the respondent on grounds that the Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this application as it is now functus officio. The application isRes judicata in view of the plaintiff's application dated 16th September 2010 and orders granted on the 7th October, 2010 staying execution of the decree pending determination of the appeal. The Appeal Nyeri Court of Appeal No.248 of 2012 was heard and determined and therefore there can be no further extension of the court order staying execution of the decree. The plaintiff had ample time since 23rd April, 2010 when judgment was delivered, a period over four (4) years to make arrangements for alternative premises. The status of plaintiff employees does not form part of the lease contract. The plaintiff was in year 2010 issued with notice to give vacant possession which it failed to heed to and that justice is not one sided and if the order sought are granted it will prejudice the defendant immensely and occasion a miscarriage of justice. The respondent states that the plaintiff does not pay rent and therefore the orders sought are inequitable. The mesne profit continues to accumulate and now stand at Kshs.13 million. If the plaintiff is acting in good faith it should settle the rent arrears and accumulated mesne profit first. The foregoing notwithstanding, the plaintiff has not furnished any security for the due performance of the obligation to the court.
The respondent argues further that the terms of the lease has since lapsed by effluxion of time and the same has therefore determined. The plaintiff should therefore be coerced to yield and give vacant possession. The Honourable Court does not have jurisdiction to extend the term of lease contract as requested by the plaintiff. The stay order ought if granted would be tantamount to an extension of the terms of the lease and or the contract hereof, which has since determined.
According to the respondent this application is an abuse of the court process and was brought merely to frustrate the defendant from recovering the rent arrears due and possession of the premises. The plaintiff continues occupying the premises against the will of the defendant and is a trespasser and therefore destitute of any rights as pertains the said premises.
This court finds that the applicants appeal having been dismissed with costs, litigation herein has come to an end hence one party must enjoy the fruits of judgment and this party is the respondent. However this being a case for eviction the court is not oblivious of the fact that the same is likely to disrupt the business of the applicant and affect the numerous persons in the applicant's employment, hence I'm inclined to grant the applicant upto the 8th of November 2014 to vacate the premises. The applicant to pay the outstanding rent on or before the 31st of October 2014. Each party to bear its own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered on 7th day of October, 2014.
A. OMBWAYO
JUDGE