Anita Mugambi v Meru County Investment & Development Corporation [2017] KEELC 2110 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Meru court dismissed a tenant's bid to stop her landlord from raising rent or ending her lease, ruling the lease itself allowed it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant established a prima facie case
No prima facie case was established; the lease plainly contained a clause permitting alteration of the tenancy on one month's notice, which the Respondent issued
The court declined to interpret the lease at the interlocutory stage and relied on its plain terms. Clause 5 of the general covenants allowed either party to alter the tenancy by one month's notice or payment in lieu. The Respondent issued such a notice, which the Applicant did not comply with. That the new rent was high was not a factor since the contract was silent on the review amount.
Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss
The Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and did not argue the Respondent could not pay damages
Relying on Vivo Energy v Maloba Petrol Station and the decision in Nguruman v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held that where damages are an adequate remedy and the respondent can pay, no interlocutory injunction should be granted. The Applicant advanced no argument that the Respondent could not pay damages.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience did not tilt in the Applicant's favour, since she was not paying rent while enjoying injunction orders and the Respondent/public incurred losses
The court noted the Applicant was apparently not paying any rent and was the one enjoying the injunctive orders, while the Respondent and the public suffered losses, the premises belonging to the Respondent. On this ground too the application failed.
Effect of Order 40 rule 6 CPR on the interim injunction granted on 11.07.16
The interim injunction granted on 11.07.16 had lapsed by operation of law since the suit was not determined within twelve months
Order 40 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that an interlocutory injunction lapses if the suit is not determined within twelve months unless the court orders otherwise for sufficient reason. The orders granted on 11.07.16 (extended only to 27.4.17) had therefore lapsed, and the court vacated them.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot rewrite a contract between parties; parties are bound by the terms of their contract unless there is coercion, fraud or undue influence
- Where an interlocutory injunction is granted and the suit is not determined within twelve months, the injunction lapses unless the court orders otherwise for sufficient reason
- If damages are an adequate remedy and the respondent is capable of paying, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted however strong the claim appears
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14.06.2016 dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The injunctive orders granted earlier (on 11.07.16) vacated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit premises (Municipality/Block 11/119, Meru); no specific statutory provision invoked for jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anita Mugambi v Meru County Investment & Development Corporation [2017] KEELC 2110 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Meru ELC (application dated 14.06.2016) – full suit number not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2110/eng@2017-07-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.