Systemedia Technologies Limited v Matheka & 3 others (Environment and Land Appeal 21 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 18488 (KLR) (29 June 2023) (Judgment)

Summary at a glance

Facts

Systemedia Technologies Limited sought an order restraining the Defendants from levying distress, removing and/or selling goods already irregularly proclaimed or any further proclamation and/or distraining the moveable property of the Plainti pending the hearing and determination of the application. The Senior Resident Magistrate dismissed the application with costs.

Issues

• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law by duplicating a ruling on a Notice of Motion Application he had delivered earlier
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to consider and appreciate that the ruling addressed the wrong application
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to pronounce himself on the issue of unilateral increase of rent by the 1st Respondent and retrospective application of the same
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to appreciate that the ruling has grave and material errors
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the Appellant had adduced sufficient reasons for grant of an injunction
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law by failing to find that the proposed unilateral rent increment was unlawful, unconscionable and extortionate
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding that there were rent arrears which had not been paid
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the unilateral and arbitrary increase in rent via correspondence by the 1st Respondent contravened the terms of the Lease Agreement
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to find that the Appellant's case raises triable questions worth being considered on merit in a full hearing/trial
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law by failing to exercise his discretion properly as required by law
• Whether the learned magistrate erred in law by failing to consider, appreciate and find that the Appellant stands to suffer substantial and irreparable harm and damage by dismissing its Notice of Motion Application and failing to consider its Notice of Motion Application

Reasoning

The court found that the Appellant did not meet the conditions for grant of the interlocutory relief and that the learned magistrate properly exercised his discretion in declining to grant the orders sought.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

• The Appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
• Each party to bear own costs of the Appeal.