Impala Associates Ltd v Okware & Anor (Misc. Applic. No. 80 of 2015)
The full judgment
Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Court of Appeal, sitting as a single Justice, dismissed an application for interim injunction and stay restraining the respondents from evicting the applicant tenant. The applicant failed to show a prima facie case: the tenancy was executed with a person who was never the registered proprietor, the applicant had not been paying rent, and had purported to set off self-determined repair costs against rent without authority. As the applicant's claims sounded in ascertainable money damages, no irreparable loss arose. The balance of convenience favoured the registered owner, who was kept out of his expired-tenancy property without rent. No appeal had been lodged, suggesting delay. The application was dismissed with costs.
Facts
On 28 January 2011, the first respondent, as landlady, executed a two-year tenancy agreement with the applicant for residential premises at Plot 32 Lake Drive, Port Bell, at a monthly rent of US$1,500. The agreement gave the tenant a first right of refusal to purchase the property. Disputes later arose, and the applicant sued the respondents in the High Court (Land Division) Civil Suit No. 538 of 2014 claiming damages for breaches of warranty and misrepresentation. The applicant also filed High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1193 of 2014 seeking an injunction, which Luswata J dismissed with costs as without merit. The applicant lodged a Notice of Appeal and the present application, together with substantive Application No. 79 of 2015, seeking to restrain eviction pending determination. The applicant had not been paying rent and had purported to offset self-assessed repair costs against rent without the owner's consent. The first respondent was never the registered proprietor; the second respondent was. The tenancy had expired.
Issues
- Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success in the substantive application and intended appeal.
- Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss if the interim orders were not granted.
- Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim injunction and stay.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.2(2)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.6(2)(b)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.32(1)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
Cases cited (1)
- Wilson Mukiibi v James Ssemusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)