Hussein Ali Benyoka v Kaydee Quarry Ltd [2019] KEELC 4064 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court ended a decades-old quarry lease, ruling a Ksh. 4,000 annual rent was so unfair it could not stand.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Status of the plaintiff as legal representative and owner of the leased land
The court found the plaintiff to be the legal representative of the Estate of Benyoka Mwakoyo, the owner of the two unregistered parcels, and rejected the defence questioning ownership
PW1 testified that he is the legal representative of the Estate of Benyoka Mwakoyo, producing a grant of letters of administration (PEx2), and the lease agreement (PEx7) was in evidence. The defendant argued it had dealt with Stephen Benyoka and did not know whom to pay rent to, and that no probate confirmation had been provided. The court held the defence frivolous and found the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities.
Whether the rent under the 1978 lease was unconscionable and reviewable
The rent of Ksh. 4,000/= per annum was grossly low and the lease terms unconscionable, unfair and oppressive and could not stand
Relying on Margaret Njeru Muiruri v Bank of Baroda and Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Ngeny & Another, the court held that while parties are bound by their contract, equity intervenes to relieve a party of harsh, unconscionable and oppressive bargains. The defendant admitted the Ksh. 4,000/= rent was far below current value (its own valuation was Kshs 146,000 per annum), so the terms were unreasonably favourable to the defendant and could not be allowed to stand.
Entitlement to vacant possession and mandatory injunction
Having proved his case on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff was granted vacant possession and a mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the land
The court found a subsisting lease dated 19th February 1978 between the plaintiff's late father and the defendant, whose terms were oppressive and could not stand. The defendant had no valid basis to remain in occupation on those terms. The court therefore granted the mandatory injunction and vacant possession sought in the plaint, together with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court of law cannot rewrite a contract with regard to interest as parties are bound by the terms of their contract
- Courts may refuse to enforce contracts that are unconscionable, unfair or oppressive, or whose terms are unreasonably favourable to one party
- By its equitable jurisdiction, a court will set aside a bargain which is harsh, unconscionable and oppressive
Court orders
#- 1.Mandatory injunction to issue against the defendants from utilizing, quarrying, alienating, selling and or dealing with the unregistered parcel of land forming the lease situated at Kokotoni within Kaliang'ombe Adjudication measuring about 4.94 acres
- 2.Vacant possession of the unregistered parcel of land being occupied by the defendants at Kokotoni within Kaliang'ombe Adjudication
- 3.Costs of the suit to the plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (land and environment disputes); not expressly stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hussein Ali Benyoka v Kaydee Quarry Ltd [2019] KEELC 4064 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case No. 48 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4064/eng@2019-03-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.