Rainlex Investment Limited v Maxwell Otieno Odongo & another [2017] KEELC 1888 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered a landlord to let its former tenant collect business belongings after a broken repair promise, despite unpaid-rent demands.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case with a probability of success
The court found a prima facie case against the 1st Defendant based on the lease covenants to repair, including keeping the passenger lifts in proper, safe and working order.
The court examined the lease and found the 1st Defendant covenanted under clause 3(b) to keep the roof, main structure, drains and sanitary apparatus in good and tenantable repair, and under clause 3(c) to keep the passenger lifts in proper, safe and working order. Correspondence showed the Plaintiff repeatedly raised the leaking roof, spoilt lift and poor sanitation. The term of the lease was to end on 30th November 2017, and the Plaintiff's serviced-office business on the 4th floor required a working lift and proper sanitation.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm absent access to the Suit Property
The court found irreparable harm because the Plaintiff needed access to its belongings/assets to continue running its business.
The Plaintiff operated a business providing serviced working space for start-ups, techies and entrepreneurs on the 4th floor. Without access to its belongings and assets, it could not continue that business. The court accepted that denial of access would occasion harm not compensable in damages, particularly as the lease was to expire on 30th November 2017 and the Defendants had demanded rent for the remainder of the lease period before releasing the assets.
Adequacy of the deposit held as security against the landlord's counterclaim
The deposit of Kshs. 3,100,000/= held by the 2nd Defendant sufficed to defray any sums later found owing, tilting the balance in favour of granting access.
The 2nd Defendant, as the 1st Defendant's rent-collecting agent, held the Plaintiff's deposit of Kshs. 3,100,000/=. The court reasoned that this sum was available to defray any amounts the court might later find the Plaintiff owed the 1st Defendant, so granting access would not prejudice the Defendants pending trial. The Defendants did not enter appearance or file a response despite service.
Legal principles established
#- A landlord who covenants to keep premises in good and tenantable repair, including the passenger lifts, must do so; a tenant's termination of the lease for breach does not entitle the landlord to deny the tenant access to remove its belongings while holding its deposit.
- A deposit held by the landlord/agent can be used to defray sums the tenant may later be found to owe, supporting the grant of access pending trial.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff's application dated 4th July 2017 granted (compelling the Defendants to grant the Plaintiff access to Piedmont Plaza 4th Floor Wing B to carry away its belongings)
- 2.The Plaintiff to give an undertaking as to damages
- 3.The Plaintiff to have the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the judgment; the application is brought pending determination of a suit concerning a lease under the Land Act (Section 65(1)(f) cited for the termination notice)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rainlex Investment Limited v Maxwell Otieno Odongo & another [2017] KEELC 1888 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1888/eng@2017-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.