SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Kings Motors Ltd v Shell & BP (Malindi) Kenya Ltd (Civil Application 336 of 2004) [2005] KECA 265 (KLR) (Civ) (4 February 2005) (Ruling)

[2005] KECA 265 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
265
Citation
[2005] KECA 265 (KLR)
Decided
4 February 2005
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for stay of execution pending the filing, hearing and determination of an intended appeal
Holding

The Court denied the application for stay of execution, finding that the intended appeal was not frivolous and that the appeal was not rendered nugatory.

Facts

The applicant, Kings Motors Ltd, entered the suit property (Nakuru Municipality/Block 11/650) in September 2004, after the tenant, Shell & BP (Malindi) Kenya Ltd, had vacated it. The tenant had previously leased the property to Agip (K) Ltd for a petrol service station, but the service station was not constructed. The tenant then applied for and obtained temporary injunctions against the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's entry into the property was a trespass
  2. Whether the tenant's breach of lease terms justified the landlord's repossession of the property
  3. Whether the temporary injunctions should be stayed pending the appeal

Reasoning

The Court held that the lease between the parties was still subsisting and that the tenant's breach of lease terms did not justify the landlord's repossession of the property. The Court also found that the applicant was not a trespasser and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the tenant.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution denied

Orders

  • Temporary stay of execution of the two orders until the hearing and determination of the application

Remedies

  • None

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Companies Act
  • Rules of the Court
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case