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

Starnet Investments Limited v Rukia Salim [2017] KEELC 1545 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1545 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1545
Citation
[2017] KEELC 1545 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTemporary InjunctionPosturePlaintiff seeks a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with its possession and use of parking bays No.25 and No.26 at Connaught Apartments.CoramS. OKONG’O
Holding

The plaintiff is entitled to continue using parking bays No. 25 and No. 26 until SR Flats Limited or Maple Management Limited allocates to him new parking bays in writing.

Facts

The plaintiff is the leasehold proprietor of Apartment Number 62 on the 6th floor of Connaught Apartments, with a lease dated 8th December, 1998. The plaintiff claims to have used parking bays No.25 and No.26 since 1998. The defendant claims to have been allocated parking bay No.25 by Gimco Limited, the former managers of the suit property.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue using parking bays No. 25 and No. 26
  2. Whether the defendant has a right to park her car on parking bay No.25

Reasoning

The plaintiff has established a prima facie case against the defendant and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The plaintiff has not been allocated another parking bay.

Outcome

The plaintiff's application dated 4th May, 2015 is allowed in terms of prayer 3 thereof.

Orders

  • The injunction granted herein shall remain in force until the hearing and determination of the suit or for a period of 12 months from the date hereof whichever comes earlier.

Remedies

  • Temporary injunction
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