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

Paragon Electronics Limited & another v Esufali & another (Environment & Land Case 178 of 2017) [2022] KEELC 2871 (KLR) (12 May 2022) (Judgment)

[2022] KEELC 2871 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
2871
Citation
[2022] KEELC 2871 (KLR)
Decided
12 May 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeLand DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramMOGENI J.
Holding

The court finds that the termination of the car parking license agreement was valid and the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought.

Facts

Paragon Electronics Limited and Remax Property Management Ltd filed a suit against Yusuf Sharafally Esufali and Amama Yusuf Sharafally Esufali seeking termination of the car parking license agreement dated November 30, 2015.

Issues

  1. whether the termination of the car parking license agreement was valid
  2. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought

Reasoning

The court held that the agreement was valid and binding as it was formed with legal minimum elements and valid consideration. The plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction and parking fees.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from parking more than two vehicles at the premises
  • Payment of Kshs 300 per day per motor vehicle for the two extra vehicles parked at the premises for 90 days

Remedies

  • Permanent injunction
  • Payment of parking fees

Authorities cited

Cases cited (6)
  • National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Pipe Plastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & Another [2002] EA 503
  • Margaret Njeri Muiruri v Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited [2014] eKLR
  • Rufale v Umon Manufacturing Co (Ramsboltom) [1918] LR 1KB 592
  • Attorney General of Belize et al Vs Belize Telecom Ltd & Another (2009) 1WLR 1980
  • All Card v Skinner [1887] 36 Ch D 145
  • Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Aboody [1992] 4 All ER 955
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case