PETER OKOKO & ANOTHER v KENYA LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION FUND & ANOTHER [2002] KEHC 955 (KLR)

Facts

Tenants of a business premises sought a Prohibitory Injunction to restrain the landlord from carrying away and advertising for sale their goods, and a Mandatory Injunction for return of the goods. The tenants claimed to be protected tenants under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, and the Business Tribunal had already determined that the premises were a controlled tenancy.

Issues

1. Whether the tenants established a prima facie case for a Prohibitory Injunction.
2. Whether the tenants suffered irreparable loss.
3. Whether the tenants had special circumstances warranting a Mandatory Injunction.

Reasoning

The court found that the tenants did not establish a prima facie case for a Prohibitory Injunction and that they did not suffer irreparable loss. The court also found no special circumstances warranting a Mandatory Injunction.

Outcome

Dismissed

Authorities cited