unoccupied. The plaintiff promised to accept half of the rent as long as the war continued. By the end of 1945, all the flats were occupied. The plaintiff sued for the defendant to be compelled to pay. The full rent. The arrears.
The defendant argued that it was inequitable (unfair) for the plaintiff to claim the arrears. It was held that whereas it was fair for the
defendant to pay the full rent, it was unfair to claim the arrears as the plaintiff had made a promise which the defendant had reliede upon and changed its legal position.
The plaintiff was estopped from insisting on the arrears. The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies in East Africa.
In
Century Automobile v. Hutchings Biemer Ltd, the defendant took a lease of the plaintiff’s premises which was terminable by a 3 month notice of either party. The defendant intended to make alterations to the building but feared doing so only for the lease to be terminated. The plaintiff promised not to terminate the lease in 4 years time.
As
a consequence, the defendant spent 800 pounds on the alterations but months later the defendant received the plaintiff’s notice of termination but refused to honour it and was sued.
The defendant pleaded estoppel. The plaintiff was estopped from evicting the defendant as it had made a promise which the defendant had relied upon and changed its legal position.
A similar holding was made in
Commissioner of Lands v. Hussein.Share with your friends: 
