Bakari Mohamed Abulrahman v Sadik Muchiku Imaana [2020] KEELC 1583 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi landlord who illegally evicted a protected tenant was ordered to pay damages and all court costs, but lost claims for inflated losses due to poor record-keeping.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant's eviction from the two shops was lawful
The eviction was unlawful: the tenancy was protected under Cap 301, the termination notice was invalidated by the BPRT, and the eviction occurred during subsisting preservatory orders, with the plaintiff also filing a false affidavit of service.
The defendant's evidence was wholly uncontroverted, the plaintiff having defaulted. The Tribunal had invalidated the termination notice and its judgment was unchallenged. The plaintiff concealed material facts, caused a false affidavit of service to be filed, obtained ex-parte eviction orders, and broke into the premises during preservatory orders issued on 16/5/2013, leading to theft of the defendant's goods.
Whether the defendant was entitled to general damages for loss of business at the sums claimed
Only nominal damages of Kshs 500,000 were awarded because the business documents tendered were self-authored and did not conclusively prove loss.
Although the unlawful eviction was established, no audited accounts or tax returns were presented for any year preceding the eviction. The handwritten documents contained no invoices, delivery notes, bank or tax documents, so they could not found an assessment at the daily and monthly figures urged by the defendant.
Whether special damages were proved
Special damages were not proved because the payment slips said to support the electricity claim were not produced among the exhibits and no proof was tendered for the other limbs.
Counsel submitted that payment slips for electricity bills had been filed, but the alleged slips were not among the eight exhibits produced. Similarly, no proof was tendered for goodwill and the rent deposit. Special damages require strict proof to the required standard, which was not met.
Legal principles established
#- Special damages must be strictly proved; unproduced or unparticularized proof fails to meet the required standard
- Self-authored, handwritten business documents without invoices, delivery notes, bank or tax documents do not constitute conclusive evidence of loss of business; the court may award nominal damages instead
- Costs follow the event
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's suit is dismissed for non-attendance and for lack of evidence
- 2.The defendant's counterclaim is allowed to the extent that the defendant is awarded nominal damages for loss of business in the sum of Kshs 500,000
- 3.The plaintiff shall bear costs of the suit, including costs relating to newspaper notices
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property LR No 36/11/1027 (provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakari Mohamed Abulrahman v Sadik Muchiku Imaana [2020] KEELC 1583 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 30/10/2012). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1583/eng@2020-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.