[1988] KECA 112 (KLR)

[1988] KECA 112 (KLR)

The Court held that the landlord could not lawfully refuse to accept possession of the premises upon termination of the tenancy on the ground of breach of the repair covenant. The tenant's obligation was limited to making repairs, which was fulfilled, and the landlord did not incur any repair costs. The only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1988] KECA 112 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Owuor; Respondent: Kenya Medical Research Institute, Malaria and Other Protozol Diseases Research Center
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 25 of 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy Termination, Mesne Profits, Breach of Repair Covenant
Source Language
en
Land and Property Tenancy Termination Mesne Profits Breach of Repair Covenant

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owuor

Appellant

Kenya Medical Research Institute, Malaria and Other Protozol Diseases Research Center

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether a landlord can refuse to accept possession of premises upon termination of tenancy due to tenant's breach of repair covenant.
  2. 2 Whether the landlord is entitled to damages beyond mesne profits for the period of holding over.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the landlord could not lawfully refuse to accept possession of the premises upon termination of the tenancy on the ground of breach of the repair covenant. The tenant's obligation was limited to making repairs, which was fulfilled, and the landlord did not incur any repair costs. The only compensation available to the landlord was mesne profits for the period the tenant held over, which was one month. No special or general damages were proved beyond this, and the claims for further damages were based on a mistaken view of the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's judgment was upheld.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.