[2015] KEELC 702 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant initially sought a temporary injunction due to the unavailability of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, the circumstances had changed by the time of the ruling. The Chairperson of the BPRT had commenced sittings, making it possible for the applicant's substantive dispute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 702 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rufus Mbaya; Respondent: M. Y. Malik T/A Fuji Motors (Nairobi) Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 101 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed as moot
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Temporary Injunctions, Eviction Proceedings
- 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
Rufus Mbaya
Applicant
M. Y. Malik T/A Fuji Motors (Nairobi) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from evicting him from the suit property pending the hearing of BPRT Case No. 219 of 2014.
- 2 Whether the application has been overtaken by events due to the commencement of sittings by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant initially sought a temporary injunction due to the unavailability of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal, the circumstances had changed by the time of the ruling. The Chairperson of the BPRT had commenced sittings, making it possible for the applicant's substantive dispute to be heard and determined by the appropriate tribunal. As a result, the application for a temporary injunction was rendered moot and had been overtaken by events. The court therefore dismissed the application, holding that there was no longer a basis for the injunctive relief sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as moot
Orders
- The Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2014 is dismissed.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND DIVISION
ELC. MISC. APPL. NO. 101 OF 2014
RUFUS MBAYA………………………..……………PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
M. Y. MALIK
T/A FUJI MOTORS (NBI) LTD…………...…. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
Coming up before me for determination is the Chamber Summons dated 10th April 2014 in which the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks for orders of temporary injunction pending the hearing of the tribunal case BPRT No. 219 of 2014 restraining the Defendant/Respondent from evicting him out of the property known as L.R. No. 1870/IX/172 Muthithi Road, Westlands (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).
This Application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of it together with the Supporting Affidavit of the Plaintiff/Applicant sworn on 10th April 2014 in which he averred that he has been a tenant on the suit property jointly with the Respondent and another paying rent in the sum of Kshs. 100,000/- out of which his monthly contribution to the rent is Kshs. 30,000/-. He further averred that the Landlord acknowledges the rent payment in the name of the Respondent’s company Fuji Motors (Nairobi) Ltd. He further stated that he has been in occupation of the suit property from 2011 and that the Respondent issued him with an eviction notice through his lawyers on 7th April 2014. He further disclosed that he has lodged a complaint against the Respondent at the Business Premises Tribunal under BPRT Case No. 219 of 2014 but that despite a Chairperson having been appointed via Gazette Notice No. 713 of 3rd February 2014, the Tribunal is not yet sitting. In closing, he stated that the threat of eviction and interruption of his business affairs in the suit property is real and he seeks the protection of this court through the issuance of the temporary injunction.
The Application is uncontested. Despite being duly served with the Application, the Respondent did not file any response.
It is true that at the time this Application was filed, the Chairperson of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal had been appointed but had not commenced sitting, prompting the filing of this Application before this court. However, as at today’s date, the Chairperson of the BPRT is now sitting. To that extent therefore, I consider this Application to have been overtaken by events as the relief sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant is for a temporary injunction pending the hearing of BPRT Case No. 219 of 2014.
Arising from this, I hereby dismiss this Application with no order as to costs.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD
DAY OF JANUARY 2015.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE