Fruits of Africa Restaurant Limited t/a Fruits of Africa Restaurant & 2 others v Varoo Investments Limited (Civil Suit 193 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3399 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court ordered a landlord to pay over Kshs 3.2 million for unlawfully locking out a restaurant tenant, but rejected claims lacking receipts, accounts and tax returns.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the defendant's lock-out of the plaintiffs was justified
The lock-out on July 23, 2018 was without justification; no rent arrears were asserted or proved and the demand for rent lacked any accounting
The uncontroverted evidence showed no notice demanding rent, no court bailiff or auctioneer, and no sanction of the court. A letter of December 27, 2017 demanded Kshs 341,432/= while refusing to give details. The defendant did not appear to assert any arrears. The court concluded the eviction was unlawful and that the plaintiffs deserved compensation.
Quantification of the value of lost items (stock, inventory, fixtures, fittings, furniture and equipment)
Inventories totalling Kshs 1,663,500/=, Kshs 188,000/= and stock of Kshs 154,100/= were awarded, plus fixtures of Kshs 237,000/=, totalling Kshs 2,242,500/=
The inventories and stock lists were produced as exhibits and were uncontroverted since the defendant did not participate. The court found the figures supported by the documents and awarded the total of Kshs 2,005,600/= plus Kshs 237,000/= for fixtures which it considered reasonable.
Proof of lost income/profits
Claim for lost income and general damages for lost business failed for lack of specific proof
Though witnesses estimated monthly profits of Kshs 1,200,000/= in good months and Kshs 600,000/= in bad months, no full accounts prepared by an accountant and no annual tax returns were produced to substantiate net income. The court therefore declined the claim for Kshs 15,400,000/= and the general damages under prayer (c).
Claims by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs for health-related damages
These claims failed both for remoteness and for lack of expert medical evidence
The lease was between the defendant and the 1st plaintiff company; the individual directors could not claim under it, and their alleged health damage would be remote. Further, no medical expert testified to establish a nexus between the medical expenses and the defendant's actions; PW-2 did not even have treatment notes.
Legal principles established
#- A party demanding payment of rent must justify the demand and provide details; a landlord cannot lock out a tenant without justification
- Lost income is a special damage that must be specifically pleaded and proven, including by production of accounts and tax returns
- Where the tenancy is with a limited company, its shareholders/directors cannot claim damages under the contract for personal health damage, absent expert evidence of nexus
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered for the plaintiffs in the sum of Kshs 2,242,500/= under prayer (a) (stock, inventory and fixtures)
- 2.General damages for unlawful eviction of Kshs 1,000,000/= awarded to the 1st plaintiff under prayer (b)
- 3.Interest on the award under prayer (a) from the date of filing suit, and on the award under prayer (c) (unlawful eviction) from the date of judgment, at court rates till settlement in full
- 4.Costs of the suit to the plaintiffs against the defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the lease/demised premises being land parcel MN/3413, Mahesh Doshi Road, Nyali (specific provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fruits of Africa Restaurant Limited t/a Fruits of Africa Restaurant & 2 others v Varoo Investments Limited (Civil Suit 193 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 3399 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Suit No 193 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3399/eng@2022-07-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.