Artique Limited v Davita Management Ltd & 3 others [2019] KEELC 386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court stopped a landlord's agents from cutting power and blocking a buyer's construction, showing property buyers can get quick protection from interference.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction
Yes, the applicant established a prima facie case; the disputed rooftop space was part of what the applicant purchased, and whether it was a common space is left for the main hearing
Guided by Mrao Ltd v First American Bank and Nguruman Limited, and after a site visit on 27/6/2019, the court found the applicant had an apparent right over the suit premises included in its purchase. Whether the sale was valid or the space common was a matter for trial. The applicant also stood to suffer substantial loss, including a penalty of about five million shillings under its contract with Steelers Limited, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant since the agreement vested the disputed space in its control.
Whether balance of convenience favoured grant of the injunction
Yes; the agreement vested the disputed space in the control of the applicant
The court considered the contractual penalty of about five million shillings already suffered against the purchase price of approximately Kshs 18,000,000, finding the applicant would suffer substantial loss if construction continued to be disrupted. On balance of convenience, the agreement vested control of the disputed space in the applicant, making this a proper case for an injunction.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, a tribunal properly directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite party
- In considering a prima facie case for injunction, the court does not examine the merits closely; it need only see that the applicant has a right which has been or is threatened with violation
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents from disconnecting or interfering with electricity power supply to the plaintiff's premises (Hall No.1E, 6th floor, Nexgen Commercial Centre, LR 209/1848, Mombasa Road, Nairobi) pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's access, construction and/or development of the said premises and from interfering with the plaintiff's quiet possession and enjoyment of the premises pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Defendants to pay costs of the application
- 4.Applicant to file a suitable undertaking as to damages in court within 14 days
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the dispute relating to land (suit premises on LR No. 209/1848, Mombasa Road, Nairobi)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Artique Limited v Davita Management Ltd & 3 others [2019] KEELC 386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 14/3/2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/386/eng@2019-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.