Home Bridge Limited v Tatu City Limited [2021] KEELC 1881 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a developer to continue building near-completed homes despite a stop order, protecting buyers who purchased before completion.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success
Yes - as lessee of the suit property with DCC and County approvals granted, an apparent right to construct was infringed by the Stop Order
The court accepted, without deciding disputed facts, that the Plaintiff is a lessee of the suit property and therefore holds an interest in it. Approvals were undisputedly granted by the DCC and the Kiambu County Government; the extent of those approvals is a trial matter. On the Mrao definition, an apparent infringement of the right to construct was shown.
Whether the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages
Yes - the off-plan units sold to third parties, and halting a 90%-complete construction, would cause loss not adequately compensable in damages
The Plaintiff's off-plan sales to third parties were unrebutted, as was the fact that construction was 90% complete. The court took judicial notice of construction costs, wear and tear of stalled buildings, and the financial and emotional impact on third-party purchasers. Damages would be inadequate if the construction were stopped.
Where the balance of convenience lies
With the Plaintiff - the Defendant could be remedied by an order to demolish an extra floor if it ultimately succeeds
The court weighed the prejudice to each party. Halting the project would cause the Plaintiff and third parties substantial loss, whereas if the Defendant prevailed at trial, its rights could be vindicated by an order compelling demolition of any non-conforming floors, causing it no comparable prejudice.
Legal principles established
#- At interlocutory stage the court makes no conclusive findings of fact or law on contradictory affidavit evidence
- The Giella test for temporary injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience
Court orders
#- 1.Temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent, its Directors, Servants or Agents from interfering with the construction, sale, occupation and quiet possession of Block 18 – Lifestyle Heights Estate erected on a portion of Precinct 4B-2 forming part of L.R No. 28867/1 pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff/Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the suit; interlocutory application under the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 21st July 2021 (specific statutory basis not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Home Bridge Limited v Tatu City Limited [2021] KEELC 1881 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 21st July 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1881/eng@2021-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.