Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 18 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 18497 (KLR)

Emerg Investment Limited v Development Bank of Kenya Limited

Environment and Land Court
4 July 2023
2,985 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan bank that ended a lease early was ordered to pay Kshs 8.7 million, but the landlord got far less than it claimed because it had to try to find a new tenant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff leased 1,800 square feet on the ground floor of its building on Title No Nakuru Municipality/Block 9/34 to the defendant bank for a fixed term of 6 years and 6 months from 1st January 2016 to 30th June 2022. The defendant never occupied the premises, gave notice of surrender in 2018 (compromised by a consent order in HCCC 179 of 2018 reinstating the lease) and again by letter of 25th February 2020, and defaulted on rent for the first and second quarters of 2020. The plaintiff sued for Kshs 19,232,877 being rent for the unexpired term, interest, an order compelling execution of a surrender of lease, and costs. The defendant relied on the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allegedly incorporated into the lease, and pleaded the plaintiff's duty to mitigate. The court framed four issues and held that the ITPA had been repealed by the Land Registration Act, 2012 before the lease was made, so it had no force of law. The lease contained no early termination clause; following Chimanlal Meghji Naya Shah v Oxford University Press and Ranji Meghji Gudka v Kisii University, the defendant's premature termination was a breach entitling the plaintiff to damages. However, applying the mitigation principles in African Highland Produce Ltd v John Kisorio and taking judicial notice of the Covid-19 pandemic, the court limited compensation to unpaid rent for January–April 2020 plus 12 months' rent to April 2021, plus 16% VAT, less the Kshs 1,170,000 deposit. Judgment was entered for Kshs 8,677,910.48 with interest at court rates from the date of judgment, and the plaintiff was awarded costs. The surrender order was refused as overtaken by events.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicability of the Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Holding

The Act had been repealed by the Land Registration Act, 2012 before the 2016 lease was made, so its provisions (including s.111(h)) could not govern termination

Reasoning

Article 68 of the Constitution required Parliament to revise and rationalise land laws. Parliament enacted the Land Registration Act, 2012, which wholly repealed the ITPA with effect from 2nd May 2012. Repeal means the Act ceased to have the force of law, so a lease executed in 2016 could not incorporate its provisions.

p. 4
02

Breach of contract by early termination

Holding

The lease contained no early termination clause; the Defendant's notice of surrender before expiry of the 6-year-6-month term constituted breach

Reasoning

The court perused the lease and found no early termination clause. Following Chimanlal Meghji Naya Shah v Oxford University Press and Ranji Meghji Gudka v Kisii University, termination of a fixed-term lease before expiry is a breach for which the party at fault must pay damages.

p. 5
03

Quantum of damages and mitigation

Holding

Damages limited to unpaid rent for January–April 2020 plus 12 months' rent from May 2020 to April 2021, plus 16% VAT, less the deposit of Kshs 1,170,000

Reasoning

The plaintiff was obliged to take reasonable steps to mitigate, including seeking a new tenant or letting at a lower rent. Taking judicial notice of the Covid-19 pandemic, 12 months' rent after expiry of the notice was held fair, reasonable and adequate compensation; there is no scientific formula for such damages.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Termination of a fixed-term lease before expiry, where the lease contains no termination clause, amounts to breach of contract
  • A plaintiff must mitigate losses arising from breach of contract and cannot recover sums attributable to its own neglect
  • The Indian Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was repealed by the Land Registration Act, 2012 and had no force of law for leases made after 2nd May 2012

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for Kshs 8,677,910.48/- (inclusive of VAT)
  2. 2.Interest on the amount awarded at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full
  3. 3.Plaintiff awarded the costs of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over leases and land (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution; ELC Act)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Emerg Investment Limited v Development Bank of Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 18 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18497/eng@2023-07-04

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