[2015] KEHC 2321 (KLR)
The court found that there was confirmation of an agreement between the parties that the plaintiffs would be allocated stalls after renovations. Although the defendants could not guarantee the plaintiffs would receive the exact same stalls, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to first preference in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2321 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mohamed Haroon; Plaintiff: Salim Mohamed Omar t/a Wonderful Butchery; Plaintiff: Abdullatif Mudaris; Plaintiff: Mohamed Salim; Defendant: County Government of Kilifi; Defendant: Malindi Sub Unit
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 18 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Market Stall Allocation, Injunctive Relief, Landlord Tenant Disputes
- 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
Mohamed Haroon
Plaintiff
Salim Mohamed Omar t/a Wonderful Butchery
Plaintiff
Abdullatif Mudaris
Plaintiff
Mohamed Salim
Plaintiff
County Government of Kilifi
Defendant
Malindi Sub Unit
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from allocating their market stalls to other persons pending renovations.
- 2 Whether there was an enforceable agreement to re-allocate the same stalls to the plaintiffs after renovations.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was confirmation of an agreement between the parties that the plaintiffs would be allocated stalls after renovations. Although the defendants could not guarantee the plaintiffs would receive the exact same stalls, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to first preference in allocation of stalls within the areas they previously occupied, subject to the defendant's guidelines on product specification. If this arrangement could not accommodate all plaintiffs, the defendants were to ensure allocation of stalls elsewhere in the market. The application for injunction was therefore merited and granted on these terms.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The defendant shall ensure the plaintiffs are allocated stalls at the market after renovations, with first preference to stalls within the areas currently occupied by the plaintiffs, subject to product specification guidelines.
- If the above arrangement fails to accommodate all plaintiffs, the defendant shall allocate stalls to the plaintiffs in any other part of the market.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT MALINDI
CIVIL CASE NO.18 OF 2014
1. MOHAMED HAROON
2. SALIM MOHAMED OMAR t/aWONDERFUL BUTCHERY
3. ADBULLATIF MUDARIS
4. MOHAMED SALIM..................................................PLAINTIFFS
VRS
1. COUNTY GOVERNMENTOF KILIFI
2. MALINDI SUB UNIT..............................................DEFENDANTS
RULING
The application dated 17/10/2014 seeks to restrain the defendant from allocating certain market stalls to other people other than the plaintiffs. It is supported by the affidavit of Mohamed Haroon sworn on 16/10/2014. The defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on 28/11/2014 by Patience Umazi Tsimba.
Counsel for the applicants submitted that the plaintiffs are tenants of some stalls at the Kwa Jiwa Market in Malindi. They were asked to relocate as the market is under renovation. There was an oral argument that once the renovations are over, the applicants would be re-allocated the same stalls. However, there is no guarantee that the defendant will fulfill that agreement and the applicants are apprehensive that other people might be allocated their stalls: The applicants have established good will as they have operated for quite sometime.
On his part, counsel for the respondent contends that the market is under renovation. The structure will change and the format of the market will also change. There is no guarantee that the applicants will get the same stalls. The renovated market will be dinded into sections according to the type of product being sold.
From the pleadings herein, it is confirmed that the defendant agreed to ensure that the applicants are allocated market stalls once the renovations are over. Paragraph 16 of the replying affidavit confirms that fact. According to the defendant, the stall operators had made illegal extensions and renovations to the stalls and these will be affected by the ongoing renovations.
It is clear to me that the parties are in agreement. The main issue is that the defendant cannot guarantee that the plaintiffs will get the specific areas they have been operating from. Given the fact that there is confirmation that there was an agreement between the parties, I do find that the application is merited and is granted. However, the defendant’s obligation shall be to ensure that the plaintiffs get stalls at the market and they shall be given the first preference when allocations are made to those stalls falling within the areas currently occupied by the applicants. This is subject to the defendant’s guidelines as to product specification in the market. Should the above arrangement fail to accommodate all applicants, then the defendant should ensure that the plaintiffs get stalls in any other part of the market. The application dated 17/10/2014 is granted in the above terms. Each party shall meet their own costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi this 25th day of June, 2015.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE