Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiffs (sub-tenants) sought an injunction to prevent the 2nd and 3rd defendants (landlords) from distressing their goods or evicting them due to alleged non-payment of rent. The court dismissed the application, finding the landlords had a superior interest in the property based on documents like a renewal lease and rate demands. The first defendant (intermediary landlord) admitted to non-payment of rent arrears since May 2005 but claimed willingness to settle. The court held the plaintiffs had no prima facie case, as their statutory remedy under the Distress for Rent Act (seeking damages) was available, and they were not parties to the lease agreement between the first defendant and landlords. The ruling also noted the plaintiffs' police complaint against the first defendant for fraud.
Issues
- The court considered whether the plaintiffs, who admitted being subtenants under the 1st defendant's lease with the 2nd and 3rd defendants, could legally challenge the validity of that lease. The judge concluded the plaintiffs could not, as they had not amended their plaint to reflect such a challenge and the 2nd/3rd defendants' superior interest was supported by documentary evidence from the Commissioner of Lands and City Council.
- The court determined that even if the plaintiffs had a prima facie case, their remedy lay in claiming damages under Section 8 of the Distress for Rent Act (Cap 293), which prescribes double the value of distressed goods. The judge emphasized that damages would suffice, citing prior judicial authority and the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.
- The court evaluated if the 2nd and 3rd defendants had the right to distress the plaintiffs' property for KShs.770,000 in arrears. The judge ruled they were entitled, as the 1st defendant admitted non-payment and the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of the distressed goods. The distress was deemed lawful under the admitted arrears and the lease agreement terms.
Holdings
- The 2nd and 3rd defendants were found entitled to levy distress for rent arrears, as the 1st defendant admitted non-payment of KShs.770,000.00. The court noted the plaintiffs' statutory remedy under Section 8 of the Distress for Rent Act, which allows recovery of double the value of distrained goods if distress was unlawful.
- The court determined that the plaintiffs could not challenge the lease between the 1st defendant and 2nd/3rd defendants as they admitted its validity in their plaint. The 2nd and 3rd defendants' superior interest in the property was affirmed by evidence of lease renewal and payment records, making the plaintiffs' challenge without merit.
- The application for injunctive relief was dismissed with costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The court found no prima facie case, no irreparable harm, and concluded that damages would adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience favored the defendants due to prolonged non-payment and their statutory rights.
Remedies
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for injunctive relief and ordered them to pay costs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
Legal Principles
- The court referenced res judicata, noting that the lease validity issue had been previously determined in HCCC No.96 of 2005 and could not be re-litigated.
- The court applied the principles for granting interim injunctions as outlined in Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co. Limited, requiring a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
Precedent Name
- Giella -vs- Cassman Brown & Company Limited & Another
- Minar -vs- Plaza Trust Limited and 2 Others
Cited Statute
- Distress for Rent Act
- Hotels, Shops and Business Premises Act
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
F. AZANGALALA
Passage Text
- "If any distress and sale are made under this Act for rent pretended to be in arrears and due, when in truth no rent is in arrears or due to the person distraining ...... then the owner of the goods or chattels distrained ....... shall be entitled to recover double the value of the goods and chattels so distrained and sold together with full costs of the suit from the person so distraining ..... and the double value and costs of the suit may be recovered as a civil debt recoverable summarily."
- The principles are as follows: First the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability for success at the trial but if the court is in doubt it should decide the application on a balance of convenience. Secondly, normally an interlocutory injunction will not be granted unless the applicant would suffer an injury which cannot be compensated in damages.
- The court found that the plaintiffs' challenge to the lease between the 1st defendant and 2nd/3rd defendants has no merit, as the plaint admits the lease's validity and the defendants provided evidence of their superior interest in the property.