Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2017] KEELC 461 (KLR)

Sayani Investments Limited v Kenya Institute of Professional Studies [2017] KEELC 461 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 December 2017
1,438 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff leased to the Defendant 11,000 square feet on the 1st and 2nd floors of Philadelphia House, Nairobi, on L.R. No. 209/675, at a quarterly rent of Kshs. 3,138,960, by a lease executed on 15/8/2016. The Defendant, which operates a college on the premises, sought a review of the lease to reduce the let area to exclude common parts (staircases, lifts, electrical ducts, cleaner store/refuse chute and corridors), contending it had been misrepresented as to the size and should pay rent only for about 9806 square feet. The Plaintiff filed an application dated 1/2/2017 seeking a mandatory injunction compelling continued payment of rent without deductions, alongside a plaint seeking a declaration that the lease terms are binding. Joint valuation reports dated 2/3/2017 and 10/3/2017 confirmed the total space of the two floors. The Defendant filed no defence. Relying on authority that courts cannot rewrite executed contracts absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence, and that mandatory injunctions issue in clear cases fit for immediate decision, the court held that the Defendant, as sole tenant of the two floors, enjoyed exclusive use of the common parts on those floors, which therefore could not be apportioned to any other party. The court found the Plaintiff had met the threshold for a mandatory injunction, allowed the application dated 1/2/2017, and awarded the Plaintiff the costs of the suit. Judgment was delivered at Nairobi on 14th December 2017 by K. Bor, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the leased premises vis-à-vis common parts

Holding

The premises let to the Defendant include the common parts on the 1st and 2nd floors since the Defendant is the sole tenant of those floors with exclusive use.

Reasoning

The joint valuation report confirmed the total space of the two floors. The Defendant runs a college on both floors and has exclusive use of the lift, stairs and corridors serving those floors. Only tenants accessing upper floors would use the stairs. The electrical duct and cleaner store/refuse chute serve those two floors. Where several tenants occupy a floor, common parts would be apportioned pro rata, but here there is only one tenant.

p. 3
02

Entitlement to a mandatory injunction

Holding

The Plaintiff met the threshold for a mandatory injunction, the case being a clear one fit to be decided at once.

Reasoning

Relying on authority that a mandatory injunction may issue in clear cases where the matter ought to be decided at once, and given the Defendant had filed no defence and the lease terms bound the parties, the court found the threshold met and allowed the application.

p. 3
03

Sanctity of contract

Holding

Parties are bound by the executed lease; the court cannot rewrite it absent pleaded and proved coercion, fraud or undue influence.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff cited authority that it is not the province of the court to vary duly executed contracts, quoting Shah JA in Fina Bank Ltd v Spares and Industries Ltd that equity will not ordinarily allow a party to escape a bad bargain. The Defendant's claim of misrepresentation over the floor area was not established, and the joint valuers' report confirmed the area approximated 11,000 square feet.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court of law cannot rewrite a contract between parties; parties are bound by the terms of their contract unless coercion, fraud or undue influence are pleaded and proved.
  • Where a tenant is the sole occupier of floors, common parts cannot be apportioned to any other party and the tenant is liable for rent over the gross lettable area.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 1/2/2017 is allowed
  2. 2.Mandatory injunction issued compelling the Defendant to continue paying rent in accordance with the lease without deductions
  3. 3.The Plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Cases cited (3)

  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd V. Pipeplastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & Another
    (2002) 2 EA 507
  • Fina Bank Ltd V. Spares and Industries Ltd
    (2000) 1 EA 52
  • Joseph D. K. Kimani t/a as Pyramid Auctioneers & Another V. Simon Chege Kamangu
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a lease dispute concerning premises in Nairobi

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sayani Investments Limited v Kenya Institute of Professional Studies [2017] KEELC 461 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/461/eng@2017-12-14

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