Tradeline Express Limited v Mburungar Limited & 2 others [2014] KEELC 625 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi tenant lost its bid to stop eviction and rent increases because it missed a key filing deadline and misled the court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prima facie case with probability of success
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case because it did not file a Reference against the lawful notice to increase rent and ought to have pursued its claim at the Tribunal rather than in the High Court.
The court found a valid notice under Section 4(2) of Cap 301 dated 28th October 2013 was issued and took effect after the tenant failed to file a Reference under Section 6. The existing Tribunal Case No. 949 of 2012 was available for filing a Reference. The applicant therefore had no arguable case and the suit was misplaced in this court.
Clean hands doctrine
The applicant misled the court by asserting that the order in Misc. Application No. 60 of 2014 was still in force when it had been dismissed, disqualifying it from equitable relief.
The deponent averred the restraining orders of 22nd January 2014 were still valid and unvaried, yet Misc. Application No. 60 of 2014 had been dismissed on 10th February 2014 before this suit was filed on 18th March 2014. Accordingly the Respondents had not breached any subsisting order, and a party seeking an injunction must come with clean hands.
Irreparable damage and adequacy of damages
Any loss was quantifiable and compensable by damages, so no interlocutory injunction should issue.
The court applied the American Cynamid principle that where damages recoverable at common law are adequate and the defendant can pay them, an interlocutory injunction should not normally be granted. The rent amount sought was quantifiable, so damages were an adequate remedy. The balance of convenience limb was left undecided.
Legal principles established
#- Injunctions are equitable remedies granted at the court's judicial discretion and a party seeking them must come to court with clean hands.
- A tenant who receives a notice to increase rent under Section 4(2) of Cap 301 must file a Reference under Section 6, which would automatically stay the notice; failure to do so lets the notice take effect.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 is dismissed entirely with costs to the Respondents.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction over landlord and tenant disputes relating to premises within the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301); the tenant filed suit simultaneously with a Notice of Motion seeking restraining orders pending Business Premises Rent Tribunal Case No. 949 of 2012.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tradeline Express Limited v Mburungar Limited & 2 others [2014] KEELC 625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/625/eng@2014-07-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.