Bush Air Safaris Limited v Enrica Forno & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Justice B.M. Eboso
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Bush Air Safaris Limited v Enrica Forno & another [2020] eKLR, examining key legal principles and outcomes. Ideal for legal professionals and students seeking insights into this landmark ruling.

Case Brief: Bush Air Safaris Limited v Enrica Forno & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Bush Air Safaris Limited v. Enrica Forno & Kenya Airports Authority
- Case Number: ELC CASE NO. E107 OF 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Date Delivered: 9th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Justice B.M. Eboso
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving two primary applications:
- Whether the 1st defendant's application for a stay of execution of the court's ruling dated 24th September 2020 should be granted.
- Whether the Intended Interested Party, Streak Agencies Limited, should be joined to the proceedings and if their application for a stay of execution or setting aside of the orders should be granted.

3. Facts of the Case:
The dispute centers on a tenancy agreement regarding Hangar No. 16 at Wilson Airport, Nairobi. Bush Air Safaris Limited (the plaintiff) and Enrica Forno (the 1st defendant) entered into an oral tenancy agreement in 2011. A disagreement arose in August 2020 concerning the annual rent, with the plaintiff asserting it was Kshs 1,000,000 while the 1st defendant claimed it was Kshs 2,200,000. Following a notice issued by the 1st defendant for the plaintiff to vacate the premises and a demand for US Dollars 125,000, the plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction from the court.

4. Procedural History:
The case was initially filed in the Environment and Land Court due to the Business Premises Rent Tribunal being inactive. On 24th September 2020, the court issued a ruling that temporarily restrained the defendants from terminating the plaintiff's tenancy and ordered the plaintiff to pay the disputed rent. Following this ruling, both the 1st defendant and the Intended Interested Party filed separate applications for stay and joinder, respectively.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotel & Catering Establishments) Act (Cap 301) and the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly regarding the criteria for granting stay orders and joinder of parties.
- Case Law: The court referenced the standard set in *Giella v. Cassman Brown* (1973) EA 358 regarding the requirements for granting injunctions, including the necessity of demonstrating a prima facie case and the likelihood of suffering irreparable harm.
- Application: The court determined that the Intended Interested Party failed to demonstrate their necessity for joinder as they were not privy to the original tenancy agreement. It also concluded that the 1st defendant did not meet the criteria for a stay of execution, as there was insufficient evidence of substantial loss or the provision of security.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed both applications: the 1st defendant's application for stay was denied due to lack of merit, and the Intended Interested Party's application for joinder and stay was also rejected. The ruling reinforced the principle that tenancy disputes must adhere to established legal frameworks and highlighted the importance of demonstrating substantial evidence in support of claims for stay or joinder.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The court's decision in *Bush Air Safaris Limited v. Enrica Forno & Kenya Airports Authority* clarified procedural aspects of tenancy disputes, particularly regarding the necessity of proper legal standing for parties seeking to join ongoing litigation. The ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in tenancy matters and the necessity for substantial evidence when requesting stays or joinder in legal proceedings.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Bush-Air-Safaris-Limited-v-Enrica-Forno--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1686_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries