Happyland Inn Limited v Nairobi City Council [2018] KEELC 2972 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A hotel owner lost its case against Nairobi City Council because it couldn't prove the Council demolished its wall or itemise its financial losses.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant demolished the Plaintiff's perimeter wall on 23/9/2009
The court was unable to find that the Defendant or its agents carried out the demolition; ownership of motor vehicle KAT 539X alone did not connect the Defendant to the demolition.
The demolition allegedly occurred at about midnight when it would have been dark, yet the Managing Director produced only photographs of stones on the ground with an unidentified lorry parked in the compound. Although a search showed the Defendant owned motor vehicle KAT 539X, no evidence linked that vehicle to the demolition. Without such connection, the claim in trespass and the injunction could not stand.
Whether the Plaintiff obtained the Defendant's approval to construct the perimeter wall
The court was unable to find that the Plaintiff obtained the Defendant's approval to construct the wall.
The Plaintiff produced an architectural plan but that drawing was for a house, not the perimeter wall alleged to have been demolished. No approval for the wall was produced. The Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant never issued an enforcement notice did not establish approval.
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to special and general damages
The claim for special damages failed for want of specific pleading and proof; consequently the whole suit was dismissed.
Following Arnacherry Limited v. Attorney General, special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved on a balance of probability. The Plaintiff did neither, and having failed to prove the Defendant's involvement in the demolition, both the injunctive and damages claims collapsed.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages and loss of profit must be specifically pleaded and proved on a balance of probability
- A claimant bears the burden of adducing evidence connecting the alleged wrongdoer to the wrongful act
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit are awarded to the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution establishing the Environment and Land Court (implied by court's jurisdiction over the land dispute)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Naari School (a limited liability company) v George Mwenda Muthuri[2012] KEHC 3645 (KLR)28 Jun 2012
- MERU COUNTY HOTEL TRAVELLERS LTD v COUNTY COUNCIL OF MERU CENTRAL[2010] KEHC 2656 (KLR)4 Jun 2010not followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Happyland Inn Limited v Nairobi City Council [2018] KEELC 2972 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC. Case No. 481 of 2009. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2972/eng@2018-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.