DAVID YATES & 5 Others v PETER MUTUNGA GACHIGI t/a PEE MCA MOTEL CLUB [1995] KEHC 8 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT MOMBASA

CIVIL CASE 631 OF 1994

1.  DAVID YATES

2.  HARDY HAFNER

3.  ADOLF KIMMELMANN

4.  JOSEPH MUTTUKU

5.  GUNTHER KOLBERG

6.  G. NJUGUNA ...............................................  PLAINTIFFS

Versus

PETER  MUTUNGA  GACHIGIt/a

PEE MCA  MOTEL  CLUB  ...................   DEFENDANT

RULING

In this  application brought under  Order 39 rules 3  & 4 of the  Civil Procedure Rules  and under Section 3A of the  Civil Procedure  Act,  the  Applicant/Defendant is  asking  for  orders  discharging the  injunction  issued  by  this  court on  the  21st of October,  1994.

Such orders  were  as follows:-

"1.     The  Defendant/Respondent,  his  servants, agents  or  otherwise  be  and  are  hereby  restrained by  injunction  from  playing  or  permitting  to  be played  loud  blaring  disco  music  from  dusk to dawn on  Plot Number  616  Mtwapa  in  premises known  as  Peemca  Motel  Club.

2.     The  Defendant/Respondent is  hereby  permitted to  play  soft music  on  very  minimal sound  on  the suit premises  till the  pending  suit is  heard  and determined."

Although  the  chamber  application  brought  by  the  Plaintiffsdated 13th  of October,  1994  which  lead  to  the  above  orders  was  dulyserved  on  the  Defendant/Applicant herein,  it was  then  not opposed.

However,  rule  4  of Order  39  of the  Civil  Procedure  Rules  is  wide  andenough  and  covers  the  present  application.    It is  as  follows:-

"4.    Any  order  for  an  injunction  may  bedischarged,  or  varied,  or  set  aside  by  thecourt on  application  made  thereto  by  anyparty  dissatisfied  with  such  order."

This  means  that even though the  initial  application  was  not opposed,the  subsequent order  that was  issued  can  still  be  varied or  setaside  if sufficient cause  is  shown  by  the  party  so  affected.

In  the  present  application,  the  Defendant  alleges  thatthe  application  for  injunction  which  was  granted  by  the  court,  wasnot brought by  the  Plaintiffs  in  good faith. He depones that thePlaintiffs  other  than  the  2nd  Plaintiff,  have  been  incited  againsthim  by  the  3rd  Plaintiff Mr.,  Adolf Kimmelmann  who  had  previouslyapproached  him  to  buy  his  premises  but he  refused.    The 3rd Plaintiffthen personally  assured  him  that he  would  use  his influence tofrustrate his business. He goes on to say that this would explainwhy  the  Plaintiffs  have  opted  to  ignore  another  Bar  and  Restaurantknown  as  Burn-Off-Bar  &  Restaurant is  on  a  much  more  elevated  placeand  plays  music  at  a  level  more  or  less  like  his  and  yet it is   onlywithin  a  50  meter  radious  from  his  restaurant.  He  depones  that theother  Plaintiffs  in  that case  may  have  been  used  by  Mr.  Kimmelmannwithout their  knowledge.    He  annexed  a  letter  from  the  2nd  Plaintiff to  show  that he  had  not consented  to  being  party  to  the  suit  andhas  in  fact no  complaints  at  all  against the  Defendant.

The  Defendant  mentions  that he  does  not play  loundblaring  music  from  his  Club  and that to  the  best of his  knowledge,the  level of sound  from  his  musical implements  has  been  reasonableas  they  only  play  at position  one  on  the  amplifier.    He  goes  on  tosay that his  Club  is  in  an enclosure  which  has  wooden  walls  whichdefinitely reduces  any  sound  that may  go  out.

It is the contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiffshave  proceeded  against him  on the  basis of untruths.    For  example,the  3rd  and 4th  Plaintiffs  live  about 1/2km  away  from  his  Club  whilethe  6th  Plaintiff lives  at Nyali  which  is  well over  the  200  metersthey  allege.    The  1st  and  5th  Plaintiffs  are  unknown  to  him  andmust either  be  landlords  or  people  who  live  far  away  from  mtwapa.He  points  out that  his  closest  neighbour,  the  2nd  Plaintiff has  nowconfirmed  that he  has  no  complaints  against him  as  far  as thelevel of sound from  music  in  his  house  is  concerned.    He  urged thecourt to  discharge the injunction orders that were  made  against him.

The  Plaintiffs other than the 2nd  Plaintiff who  does  not want to  pursue  the  case  maintain that they  all reside  within  a radious  of 200  meters  from  the  Defendant's  Club.    They maintain that they  have  been  deeply  affected  by the  nuisance emanating from the  premises of the  Defendant in form  of loud  blaring music  which is  always  played  from  duck  to  dawn.    They  all  agreed  together  with the  2nd  Plaintiff to cause  the  Defendant to reduce  the  level of musicsound  from  his  premises  and  when  this  failed,  they  decided to  suehim.   It is their contention that even the 2nd Plaintiff,  Mr.  Hafnerhad  agreed to  have  the  suit herein  filed  against the  Defendant buthe  is  now  backing  out simply  because  he  has  been  evicted from  thehouse  where  he  was  staying on  Plot No.618  and the  Defendant hasnow  agreed  to  accommodate  him  in  one  of the  rooms  from   this  Club.They further say  that the  2nd  Plaintiff is  now  broke  filing theattachment of his  household  goods  for  non-payment of rent  and  isnow  living  on  charity  and  debts.    They  maintain that there is  nosound proofing barrier in the suit premises and that the noiseemanating from  the said premises is simply irritating.

I think that it is settled law  that an  applicant seekingan equitable remedy of injunction,  must come to court with cleanhands.

It has  been  argued  in this  application  that the  Applicants/Plaintiffs  in  moving the  court in  this  case  had  acted onbad  faithas  the  3rd  Plaintiff had  vowed  to  punish the  Defendant who  hadrefused  to  sell to  him  the  suit premises. In other  words,  it wasalleged that he  had conspired  with  the rest of the  Plaintiffs  toinstitute  the  suit  against the  Defendant so  as  to  punish  him  forrefusing to sell to  him  the  suit premises. The  Defendant depones inparagraph 8  as follows.

8. ........................... I truly believe that the Plaintiffs here  are  motivated  by  an  ulterior  motiveagainst me,  as  I  have  already  elaboratedin  my  defence,  the  3rd  Plaintiff is  the  onewho  has  incited them  (even  without theirknowledge)  to  bring this  suit  against me.The  3rd  Plaintiff has  laboured  ill-will  againstme  since  my refusal to  sell to  him  the  suitpremises.   He  has  assured me personally thathe would use his influence to frustrate mybusiness.   In fact this  explains  to  me  whythe  Plaintiffs  have  opted to, ignore  another  Bar&  Restaurant within  a 50  meter radius  frommine  called  Burn-Off-Bar  and  Restaurant,  whichis  in  a  more  elevated  place,  plays  music   ata   level  more  or  less  like  mine  and  its  soundtravels  further,  but have  gone  ahead  to  sue  me".

In his statement of defence  dated 8th  of October,  1994, stated in  paragraph 8  as  follows:-

"8.   The  Defendant states  that the  whole  suit wasinstigated  by  the  3rd  Plaintiff out of his  ill-will,  spite  and  malice  against the  Defendantsimply  because  the  Defendant had  earlier  onrefused to  sell to  the  3rd  Plaintiff the  suitpremises  together  with  another  property  locatedin Shanzu  belonging  to  the  Defendant.    Sincethe  said refusal,  the  3rd  Plaintiff has  threatenedthe  Defendant that the  3rd  Plaintiff having  beena  Commissioner  of Police  in  Germany  and   nowworking for the  International Police,  he  has  highconnections  in the  country  which  he  would  useto  frustrate  the  Defendant's  businesses.    TheDefendant states that it was the 3rd Plaintiff

"     Who  went round collecting signatures from  the Others so as to sue the Defendant and evenwent ahead to add the list of Plaintiffs thename of the 2nd Plaintiff who was not evenaware of the suit?"-

Although  the 1st Plaintiff substantially replied to  theaverments  of facts  by the   Defendant in  his  supporting  affidavit,  Iobserve  that there  was  no  attempt made  to  specifically  deny  theallegation of bad faith and ill-will on the part of the 3rd Plaintiff.Paragraph 8  of the  Statement of Defence  has  equally  not been  deniedin  the  pleadings  as  there  was  no reply  to  the  Defence  filed.Ibelieve  that the  allegation  by  the  Defendant that the  suit  againsthim  has  been  maliciously  instituted  at the  instigation  of the  3rdPlaintiff was  such  a serious  allegation  that ought to  have  beendenied  specifically  if it was  false.    This  was  not done  and in myrespectful view,  it seriously  dents the  Plaintiff’s case  before thecourt.

Furthermore, one of the Plaintiffs in the suit, the 2ndPlaintiff has now stated that he has no complaints at all againstthe  Defendant. I  accept the  possible  reasons  for  his  about-turnwhich  shows  that he  has  done  so  for  some  financial  gain  from  theDefendant  as  he  is  now  in  an  awkward  financial  position.    I  do  nottherefore  place  much reliance on  his  intention to  withdraw  from  thesuit. However,  the fact that the 6th. Plaintiff  does  not himselfreside  near  the  Club  in  dispute  and  is  therefore  not  personally  affectedby  the  sound of music  from  the  Club  as  he  stays  far  away  in  Nyaliis another  matter  that  dents  the  case  for  the  Plaintiffs

The  3rd  matter  which  I  believe  also  casts  some  doubt inthe  Plaintiffs'  case  is  the  distance  of another  Bar  and  Restaurant,Burn-Off-Bar  within  the  locality  as  Peemca  Motel  Club  which  alsooperates  some  disco  music  which  surprisingly  does  not  attract  anycomplaints  from  the  Plaintiffs.

I  have  given  serious  consideration  to  all the  mattersthat were  urged  before  this  court in this  application  including  theallegations  made  by the  Plaintiffs  that the  Defendant has  breachedthe  court order  which  they  now  seek  to  be  discharged  or  varied.I  believe  that the  truth  as  to  whether  or  not the  sound of musicfrom  the  suit premises  is  causing  a  nuisance  in  the  neighbourhoodwould  be  determined  conclusively  by  the  court  after  the  case  isfully  heard.    As  matters  are,  1  think  that there  is  some  considerabletruth  in  the  allegation   made  by  the  Defendant that the  suit  againsthim  has   been  instigated  by  the  3rd  Plaintiff who  has  a  personalinterest in  the  suit premises  which  he  wanted  to  buy  from  him  buthe  refused.   Since  then  the  3rd  Plaintiff has  developed  a  grudgeagainst him  and  is  out to ruin  his  business  as  a  way of punishinghim  for refusing  to  sell to  him  the  premises.

Where  in  a  suit filed  by  several  Plaintiffs  all seekingan equitable  remedy,  it is  shown  as  in  this  case,  that one  of themis   acting  maliciously  in  the  case  in  furtherance  of other  interestsnot  disclosed  in  their  joint Plaint,  the  court can  perfectly,  so  Ibelieve,  refuse  to  grant the  remedies  sought  and  where  such  remedyhad  been  granted,  it can  be  discharged.

In this  case,  it  appears  to  me  that the  3rd  Plaintiffis  pursuing  interests  other  than  those  of co-Plaintiffs  in  the  suit.Prima facie,  he is  acting maliciously  against the  Defendant withwhom  he  had previously  disagreed.  In  the  circumstances, I  thinkthat the  interest of justice  will  be  served  by  discharging theorders  that had  been  given restricting the  Defendant only  to  playsoft music  at his  premises.

For reasons  given,  I  allow  this  application  and discharge the injunction that I had imposed on the Defendantregarding the operation of his  disco  music  at Peemca Motel Club.

Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.It is so ordered;

DATED  and  delivered  at Mombasa this 30th day of January,  1995.

S.O.OGUK

JUDGE.