Kenya Methodist University v New Chota Raha Investments Ltd [2020] KEELC 2513 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to protect a tenant that hid key facts and ignored a tribunal order, showing honesty is essential in injunction applications.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether or not the plaintiff/applicant's application meets the threshold for grant of temporary injunction
- 2.Who should bear costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant established a prima facie case with a probability of success for temporary injunction
The court found no prima facie case because the defendant failed to disclose material facts, including rent arrears of Kshs.4,006,510/- and non-payment of BPRT-awarded costs
The onus lies on the applicant under Giella vs Cassman Brown. The defendant did not challenge the averments in the replying affidavits showing rent arrears and non-payment of costs awarded by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. Applying the full-disclosure rule in Kenleb Cons Ltd and Abraham Lenauia Lenkon, the court held the defendant disentitled itself from relief.
Whether the defendant, having disobeyed the BPRT costs order, deserves the court's protection
The defendant did not deserve the orders sought as it had not obeyed the BPRT order to pay Kshs.100,000/- costs
Relying on Mawani vs Mawani, the court held that a party in disobedience of a court order may be refused relief until the impediment is removed. The defendant declined to pay costs awarded by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal and thus could not invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction.
Who should bear costs
Costs awarded to the plaintiff/respondent
Having found no merit in the application, the court exercised its discretion on costs against the unsuccessful applicant.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking injunctive relief, especially ex parte, must make a frank and full disclosure of all material facts and demonstrate a right, legal or equitable, requiring protection; failure to disclose disentitles the party from relief
- A party who disobeys a court order may be refused a hearing or the court's protection until the impediment is removed or good reason shown
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 23rd July 2018 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 4, 5, 8, 10 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from selling, disposing of or interfering with the defendant's goods and tools of trade carted away on 20th July 2018
Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case and did not make full disclosure of material facts
Order directing the plaintiff to open the premises at Ground floor and mezzanine floor of KEMU Towers on LR No. 209/0566
Application dismissed for want of merit; defendant guilty of non-disclosure and disobedience of BPRT orders
Order directing the plaintiff to return the defendant's goods and tools of trade to the premises
Application dismissed; defendant did not rebut evidence that it had already vacated the premises
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
All in all I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent. It is so ordered.
I am not satisfied that the defendant/applicant deserves any protection from this court. I find that it has failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.
to succeed in an application for injunction an applicant must not only make a frank and full disclosure of all relevant facts to the just determination of the application but must also show that he has a right, legal or equitable, which requires protection by injunction.
Where a party does not observe this rule, he disentitles himself from the relief which he asks the court to grant and such relief will not even be visited by the court at the interpartes stage
Issues in the judgment
#The court's framing of the first issue refers to 'plaintiff/applicant's application' although the application was brought by the defendant/applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Methodist University v New Chota Raha Investments Ltd [2020] KEELC 2513 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2513/eng@2020-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.