Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 171 of 2008· [2016] KECA 575 (KLR)

Kenya Knitting & Weaving Mills Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2016] KECA 575 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
19 May 2016
2,198 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal held that occupying property while waiting for a formal lease creates only a monthly tenancy, terminable by three months' notice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first appeal to the Court of Appeal at Nairobi against the judgment of Warsame, J in HCCC No. 2191 of 2000, delivered on 30 November 2007, dismissing the appellant landlord's claim for damages of over KShs.39 million against the respondent tenant, Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited. The dispute arose from a letter of offer dated 30 October 1997, accepted on 13 November 1997, letting several Nairobi properties to the respondent for a purported term of 5 years and 3 months, pending execution of a formal lease. The respondent took occupation but later vacated after giving three months' notice, prompting the appellant's claim for damages for the unexpired term. The trial judge found no lease agreement existed, that preparation of a formal lease was a condition precedent, and that either party could terminate by reasonable notice. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, applied Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company on the retrial nature of a first appeal, and the principles in Bashirahil v Allela and East African Power and Lighting v Attorney General. It held that the parties' paramount intention was a formal lease, that provision of title documents and physical plans was an uncontroverted condition precedent, and that in the absence of a formal lease a monthly tenancy had been created, which the respondent validly terminated by three months' notice. None of the appellant's grounds succeeded; the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the letters of offer and acceptance created binding fixed-term lease agreements

Holding

No; the intention of the parties was that a formal lease would govern their relationship, and the provision of title documents and physical plans was a condition precedent to the formal lease.

Reasoning

The court held that the parties' paramount intention was to have a formal lease. Title documents and physical plans were required to enable the respondent to draft the lease, and this condition precedent was adduced in evidence and uncontroverted. Without the executed formal lease, no fixed term of 5 years and 3 months bound the parties, so the appellant could not claim damages for the unexpired term.

p. 4
02

The nature of the tenancy created where parties occupy pending a formal lease

Holding

A monthly tenancy was created, which the respondent validly terminated by three months' notice.

Reasoning

Following East African Power and Lighting Co Ltd v Attorney General, where a prospective tenant occupies premises in anticipation of a formal lease, rent is paid and accepted, and all essential elements of the lease have not been agreed, the letting is governed by Section 106 of the ITPA and is a monthly tenancy. The respondent's three-month notice was therefore adequate and there was no breach.

p. 4
03

The duty of the Court of Appeal on a first appeal

Holding

The appeal is by way of retrial; the court reconsiders the evidence and draws its own conclusions subject to the established qualifications.

Reasoning

The court applied the Selle v Associated Motor Boat Company principles, noting that it is not bound by the trial judge's findings of fact where the judge failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities or where the impression of a witness's demeanour is inconsistent with the evidence generally. It nonetheless concluded the trial judge had properly directed himself.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An unexecuted agreement to lease is valid inter partes even without registration, but where a prospective tenant occupies premises in anticipation of a formal lease and all essential elements of the lease have not been agreed, the letting is a monthly tenancy terminable by the requisite notice.
  • On a first appeal the Court of Appeal reconsiders and evaluates the evidence and draws its own conclusions, while making due allowance for the fact that it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Evidence ActSection 107
  • Indian Transfer of Property Act (ITPA)Section 106

Cases cited (4)

  • Selle and Another v Associated Motor Boat Company Ltd and Others
    [1968] 1 EA 123 (CAZ)
  • Sheikh Abdalla Omar Bashirahil v Samuel Obila Allela
    CA No. 7 of 1993
  • East African Power and Lighting Co Ltd v The Honourable Attorney General
    [1978] KLR
  • Abdul Hameed Saif v Ali Mohamed Sholan
    (1955), 22 E.A.C.A. 270
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
HCCC No. 2191 of 2000
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court (appeal by way of retrial)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Knitting & Weaving Mills Limited v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2016] KECA 575 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2008. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/575/eng@2016-05-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.