MAYFAIR SERVICES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED V PRUDENTIAL BUILDING SOCIETY (IN LIQUIDATION) & 2 OTHERS [2012] KEHC 1898 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 1898
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1898 (KLR)
- Decided
- 26 September 2012
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeChamber ApplicationPostureAppeal from original trial outcome
Holding
The Plaintiff's application is granted, and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment and occupation of the property.
Facts
The Plaintiff, Mayfair Services and Investments Limited, borrowed Kshs. 120 million from the 1st Defendant, now in liquidation, and a charge was registered against the Plaintiff's property. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, who were appointed as receivers, forcibly took over the Plaintiff's premises and disrupted its business.
Issues
- Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have the legal authority to act as receivers and managers of the Plaintiff's property.
- Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are entitled to the Plaintiff's property and business.
Reasoning
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants do not have the legal authority to act as receivers and managers of the Plaintiff's property due to the lack of a floating charge.
Outcome
Granted
Orders
- Restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment and occupation of the property.
- Restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from acting as receivers/managers of the Plaintiff's property, business, or interfering with the Plaintiff's or its tenants' quiet possession and enjoyment of the property.
Remedies
- Restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's quiet enjoyment and occupation of the property.
- Restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from acting as receivers/managers of the Plaintiff's property, business, or interfering with the Plaintiff's or its tenants' quiet possession and enjoyment of the property.
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.
Loading judgment…