Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEldoret ELC (suit number not stated in judgment)· [2020] KEELC 1458 (KLR)

Noor Mohammed Farah v Gladys Njeri & another [2020] KEELC 1458 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 July 2020
MOM. A. ODENY
3,396 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Eldoret landlord lost his eviction and compensation case because he couldn't prove ownership rights or back up his claimed business losses with solid records.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, who ran Midwest Butchery on L.R. Eldoret Municipality/Block 7/278, sued the 1st defendant for eviction and compensation for loss of business at Kshs. 112,000/- per week, relying on a memorandum of understanding dated 9th September 2014 under which he leased the premises to the 1st defendant for two years for Kshs. 800,000/-, refundable at expiry. He claimed to have refunded Kshs. 700,000/- and deposited the balance with an advocate. The 1st defendant counterclaimed for a permanent injunction, testifying that she obtained a five-year lease from the 2nd defendant (administrator of the deceased owner's estate) in 2015 after the plaintiff failed to regularise documents, and that she vacated on 31st January 2020 pursuant to a Tribunal-ordered renovation notice. The 2nd defendant denied that Karisho Nguti, with whom the plaintiff claimed to have contracted, was validly acting for the estate. The court found the MOU referred to the wrong parcel (Block 7/771 rather than 7/278), that the plaintiff breached it by failing to refund the full Kshs. 800,000/-, and that he had lost any proprietary right by rent arrears. Eviction was overtaken by events since the 1st defendant had vacated. Loss of business, being special damages, was not proved by the unsigned, unstamped and irreconcilable receipts. The suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order of eviction

Holding

Eviction was refused; the plaintiff failed to prove a valid agreement or proprietary rights, the defendant had already vacated, and the orders were overtaken by events.

Reasoning

The plaintiff was under a duty to prove a valid agreement with the 1st defendant and authority from the owner. The MOU referred to Block 7/771, not the suit property Block 7/278, a discrepancy the plaintiff never explained. The plaintiff also refunded only Kshs. 700,000/- of the Kshs. 800,000/-, breaching the MOU, and was in rent arrears on the original lease, losing his right to sublet. The 1st defendant had vacated on 31st January 2020.

p. 4
02

Whether the eviction orders were overtaken by events

Holding

Yes; the 1st defendant complied with a Tribunal order and vacated the premises on 30th/31st January 2020, so an eviction order could not be implemented.

Reasoning

The tenants, including the 1st defendant, received a notice to vacate for renovations pursuant to an order of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal and complied on 30th January 2020. An eviction order would have no practical effect, and courts do not issue orders in vain.

p. 4
03

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for loss of business

Holding

No; loss of business is special damages which must be specifically pleaded and proved, and the plaintiff failed to discharge that burden.

Reasoning

The invoices and receipts produced did not tally with the amount pleaded; some were unsigned, not stamped, and did not show purchases of beef for the plaintiff's butchery. No bank statements or financial records substantiated the alleged weekly profit of Kshs. 112,000/-.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Compensation for loss of business is in essence special damages which must be specifically pleaded and proved.
  • Courts do not issue orders that have been overtaken by events and cannot be implemented.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants
  2. 2.The plaintiff is to refund the balance of the refund owed, having failed to prove payment of the Kshs. 100,000/- balance under the memorandum of understanding

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 13(d)
  • Stamp Duty Actsection 19

Cases cited (8)

  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another vs. Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 others
    Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011
  • Motor Vessel 'Lillians' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) KLR
  • Nairobi Civil Suit No. 422 of 2012
  • Geoffrey Maina Kanjama v Sam Mureithi Murioki T/A Uncle Sam
    (2014) eKLR
  • Nandlal Jivraj Shah & Others (All Trading as Jivaco Agencies) v Kingfisher Properties Limited
    [2015] eKLR, Mombasa Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2015
  • Danson Muniu Njeru v William Kiptarbei Korir & Others
    (2014) eKLR, Eldoret ELC Case No. 170 of 2012
  • Glencore Grain Limited v TSS Grain Millers Ltd
    [2002] eKLR, Mombasa High Court Civil Suit No. 388 of 2000
  • Alton Homes Limited & Another v Davis Nathan Chelogoi & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(d) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Noor Mohammed Farah v Gladys Njeri & another [2020] KEELC 1458 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Eldoret ELC (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1458/eng@2020-07-07

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.