Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNairobi ELC — Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 in suit filed by Plaint dated 26th February 2014

Premier Bag & Cordage Limited v Paul Gicobi Marui [2014] KEELC 108 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 October 2014
3,282 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court refused a landlord's bid for quick judgment against a tenant, ruling the disputed lease raised issues that must go to full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, registered owner of LR No. 255/3 along Thika Road (Premier Bag Shopping Complex), moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking summary judgment for vacant possession, Kshs 3,493,462.34 in rent arrears as at 1st February 2014 with interest, and mesne profits of Kshs 94,317.28 per month from 1st March 2014. The Plaintiff relied on a ten-year lease said to run from 1st January 2003 to 31st January 2013, evidenced by a letter of offer dated 22nd January 2003, contending the Defendant expired his term and remained a trespasser. The Defendant opposed, denying a formal lease and contending the letter of offer was without prejudice and non-compliant with section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, that he was a protected/controlled tenant under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act so the dispute belonged to the Business Premises Tribunal, that no valid termination notice was issued, that Ibrahim Abdalla lacked authority, and that the sums claimed were erroneous. The court held that the contested existence and admissibility of the letter of offer and the jurisdictional question of a controlled tenancy raised triable issues requiring a full trial. It further held the monetary claims were special damages, not a liquidated demand. The application was dismissed with costs to the Defendant, who was granted 15 days' leave to file and serve his defence.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated that this is a proper case for summary judgment as provided by Order 36(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. 2.Whether the Defendant raised triable issues entitling him to leave to defend the suit
  3. 3.Whether the claim for rent arrears and mesne profits constitutes a liquidated demand within Order 36 Rule 1(a)

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant raised triable issues on the existence and terms of the lease and the applicable tenancy regime

Holding

Yes; the contested existence of a formal lease, the without prejudice status of the letter of offer and the alleged controlled tenancy are triable issues

Reasoning

The letter of offer dated 22nd January 2003 is highly contested as having been exchanged on a without prejudice basis, and the Defendant asserts a controlled tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act with the dispute belonging to the Business Premises Tribunal. Following ICDC v Daber Enterprises and Momanyi v Hatimy, summary judgment requires a plain and obvious case; where it is not, a party cannot be deprived of a proper trial.

p. 5
02

Whether the rent arrears and mesne profits claims are liquidated demands under Order 36 Rule 1(a)

Holding

No; the sums are pleaded as special damages requiring proof, particularly where the lease and its terms are contested

Reasoning

Relying on Gurbaksh Singh & Sons Ltd v Njiri Emporium Ltd, the court held that a sum is liquidated only if it can be calculated independently of the claim. Here the amounts of Kshs 3,493,462.34 and Kshs 94,317.28 are pleaded as special damages in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaint and their ascertainment depends on proving the existence and terms of a contested lease, requiring investigation beyond mere calculation.

p. 5
03

Whether the court should enter summary judgment under Order 36(1)

Holding

No; the application was dismissed and the Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend

Reasoning

Applying Giciem Construction and Zola Limited v Ralli Brothers, where a defendant shows a fair case for defence or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence, leave to defend must be given. The contested lease, jurisdictional challenge and disputed account meant the matter was not plain and obvious, so summary judgment was declined.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to defend must be given on summary judgment unless it is clear there is no real substantial question to be tried
  • A sum does not become liquidated merely because it is claimed; if ascertainment requires investigation beyond mere calculation it constitutes damages at large
  • Where triable issues are raised the court has no discretion but to grant the defendant unconditional leave to defend

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The prayers in the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 are declined
  2. 2.The Plaintiff shall meet the costs of the said Notice of Motion
  3. 3.The Defendant is granted leave to file and serve his Defence within 15 days of the date of the ruling

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 36 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (summary judgment jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC over claims for liquidated demand and recovery of land)

Relief refused

#

Summary judgment for vacant possession of LR No. 255/3 (Premier Bag Shopping Complex)

Triable issues were raised, notably whether a formal lease existed, whether the tenancy was a controlled tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act and jurisdiction of the Business Premises Tribunal

p. 5

Summary judgment for Kshs 3,493,462.34 rent arrears and Kshs 94,317.28 monthly mesne profits with interest

The sums are contested and claimed as special damages requiring proof, hence not a liquidated demand

p. 5

Costs

The Plaintiff shall meet the costs of the said Notice of Motion.

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.

The prayers in the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 are therefore declined for the reasons given in the foregoing, and the Plaintiff shall meet the costs of the said Notice of Motion.
p. 5Final orders - dismissal of summary judgment application with costs to Defendant
The Defendant is accordingly granted leave to file and serve his Defence within 15 days of the date of this ruling.
p. 5Leave to defend
Leave to defend must be given unless it is clear that there is no real substantial question to be tried.
p. 5General principle on summary judgment
If the ascertainment of the sum claimed requires investigation beyond mere calculation, then the sum is not a debt or liquidated demand, but constitutes damages at large.
p. 5Liquidated demand test

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment date is printed with blank lines around the day and month: 'Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this ____16th___ day of _____October____, 2014.'

minor

Inconsistent dates for the letter of offer: the Plaintiff relies on a letter of offer dated 22nd January 2003 while the Defendant's submissions refer to a letter of offer dated 22nd July 2003.

minor

Demand letter dates listed out of chronological order (10th January 2008, 16th November 2011, 27th March 2011 and 22nd January 2014).

minor

The grounds of opposition are dated 3rd July 2013, which predates the Plaint dated 26th February 2014 and the Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Premier Bag & Cordage Limited v Paul Gicobi Marui [2014] KEELC 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Nairobi ELC — Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2014 in suit filed by Plaint dated 26th February 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2014/108/eng@2014-10-16

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