Hosider Cawasji Bapuji Mistri & Another v Defendant (Legal Representatives of the Late C B Mistri v Defendant)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan tenant who stays past the lease expiry and damages the property was ordered to pay market-rate rent for every extra month plus repair costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Mesne profits for holdover tenancy
Awarded at shs.15,000 per month for the seven months the defendant held over (August 1982 to end of January 1983), totalling shs.105,000
The lease required the defendant to vacate on 30th June 1982 but he remained until end of January 1983. The contractual rent of shs.4,000 per month was a 1976 figure; unchallenged evidence showed offers of shs.15,000 per month, which the court adopted as the measure of mesne profits.
Damages for deterioration of the leased premises
The defendant was liable for the assessed damage of shs.65,720 per the inspection report plus the inspectors' charges
The defendant vacated in January 1983 leaving the premises in poor condition contrary to the lease. The plaintiffs instructed R R Oswald & Co whose inspection and assessment report was produced and unchallenged, the suit proceeding by formal proof after the defence was struck out.
Legal principles established
#- A tenant who holds over after expiry of a lease is liable for mesne profits measured by the market rental value of the premises.
- A tenant who returns premises in poor condition contrary to the lease is liable for the assessed cost of the damage.
Court orders
#- 1.Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs for shs.105,000 being mesne profits for seven months
- 2.Judgment for shs.66,720 (as stated in the order) for damage to the premises
- 3.Interest on the decretal amounts
- 4.Costs of the suit to the plaintiffs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court over the plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits and damages; not expressly stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hosider Cawasji Bapuji Mistri & Another v Defendant (Legal Representatives of the Late C B Mistri v Defendant)", Case Analysis (1984). Not stated in the judgment (Probate & Administration Cause No. 310 of 1982 referenced as related cause). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.