[2007] KEHC 2616 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2616 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants had a superior interest in the suit property, as evidenced by the renewal of the lease by the Commissioner of Lands and payment of land rent. The plaintiffs, as subtenants, admitted that rent arrears existed due to the 1st defendant's failure to remit rent. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were therefore entitled to levy distress for rent. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, as they were not parties to the lease and had no direct contractual relationship with the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Furthermore, any loss suffered by the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages, as provided under...

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2616 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel Munyi Kamau; Plaintiff: Robert Ngundi; Plaintiff: Miriam Nyambura; Plaintiff: Teresia Maturu; Plaintiff: Hannah Njambi Ngundi; Plaintiff: Ibrahim Muhamed Elmi; Plaintiff: Peter Ngugi Njaramba; Plaintiff: Paul Njoroge; Plaintiff: Mwangi Kahuthia; Plaintiff: Mary Nyokabi Ndungu; Plaintiff: David Murithi Kababi; Plaintiff: Joseph Karinga; Plaintiff: Charity Njeri; Plaintiff: Emilio Gathuri; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Chege; Defendant: Charles Mwangi Kagonia; Defendant: Mansukhilal D. Popat; Defendant: Jitendra Popat
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 May 2007
Case Number
Civil Case 442 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants
Legal Topics
Landlord Tenant Disputes, Distress for Rent, Injunctive Relief, Protected Tenancy, Subtenancy Rights
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Disputes Distress for Rent Injunctive Relief Protected Tenancy Subtenancy Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Munyi Kamau

Plaintiff

Robert Ngundi

Plaintiff

Miriam Nyambura

Plaintiff

Teresia Maturu

Plaintiff

Hannah Njambi Ngundi

Plaintiff

Ibrahim Muhamed Elmi

Plaintiff

Peter Ngugi Njaramba

Plaintiff

Paul Njoroge

Plaintiff

Mwangi Kahuthia

Plaintiff

Mary Nyokabi Ndungu

Plaintiff

David Murithi Kababi

Plaintiff

Joseph Karinga

Plaintiff

Charity Njeri

Plaintiff

Emilio Gathuri

Plaintiff

Elizabeth Chege

Plaintiff

Charles Mwangi Kagonia

Defendant

Mansukhilal D. Popat

Defendant

Jitendra Popat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs, as subtenants, are entitled to interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the defendants from levying distress for rent and eviction pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd and 3rd defendants had a superior interest in the suit property and were entitled to levy distress for rent.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case with a probability of success to warrant the grant of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd and 3rd defendants had a superior interest in the suit property, as evidenced by the renewal of the lease by the Commissioner of Lands and payment of land rent. The plaintiffs, as subtenants, admitted that rent arrears existed due to the 1st defendant's failure to remit rent. The 2nd and 3rd defendants were therefore entitled to levy distress for rent. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, as they were not parties to the lease and had no direct contractual relationship with the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Furthermore, any loss suffered by the plaintiffs could be adequately compensated by damages, as provided under...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application dated 3.8.2007 is dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.