Emilia Munemo v The City of Wolverhampton Council

Emilia Munemo v The City of Wolverhampton Council

The Court of Appeal held that Ms Munemo was intentionally homeless under section 191(1) because her deliberate misrepresentation induced the grant of a secure tenancy, and Thompson Avenue was available and reasonable for her occupation. The principles in Chishimba and Gliddon do not apply to secure tenancies where the applicant had legal entitlement until a possession order was executed. The Council's review decision was adequately reasoned and correctly applied the law.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Emilia Munemo; Defendant/appellant: The City of Wolverhampton Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 / Second Appeal in the Court of Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court decision quashed; Council's review decision restored.
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Statutory Interpretation, Grounds for Possession, Review Procedure, Misrepresentation in Tenancy Applications
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Statutory Interpretation Grounds for Possession Review Procedure Misrepresentation in Tenancy Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emilia Munemo

Claimant/respondent

The City of Wolverhampton Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 / Second Appeal in the Court of Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms Munemo was intentionally homeless under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for Ms Munemo to continue to occupy Thompson Avenue
  3. 3 Applicability of Chishimba and Gliddon principles to secure tenancies obtained by deception

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Ms Munemo was intentionally homeless under section 191(1) because her deliberate misrepresentation induced the grant of a secure tenancy, and Thompson Avenue was available and reasonable for her occupation. The principles in Chishimba and Gliddon do not apply to secure tenancies where the applicant had legal entitlement until a possession order was executed. The Council's review decision was adequately reasoned and correctly applied the law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court decision quashed; Council's review decision restored.

Orders

  • The Council's review decision of 11 July 2024 is restored.
  • Ms Munemo is found intentionally homeless under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996.