[2019] KEHC 4722 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant's application was irregular and without merit because it was not premised on any substantive suit or proper pleading as required by law. The court emphasized that eviction and distress for rent must be pursued through the correct legal channels, specifically by instituting a suit or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 4722 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Celestine Nzioki; Respondent: Lucy Ntinyari
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 27 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Substantive Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Distress for Rent, Eviction Procedure, Pleadings Requirements
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Celestine Nzioki
Applicant
Lucy Ntinyari
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Substantive Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application is competent in the absence of a substantive suit or pleading.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders for eviction and repossession of property through the current application.
- 3 Whether the applicant followed the correct legal procedure for distress for rent and eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant's application was irregular and without merit because it was not premised on any substantive suit or proper pleading as required by law. The court emphasized that eviction and distress for rent must be pursued through the correct legal channels, specifically by instituting a suit or proper originating process. The applicant's attempt to obtain eviction and repossession orders through a miscellaneous application, without following the prescribed procedure under the Civil Procedure Act and the Distress for Rent Act, rendered the application fatally defective. The court further noted that it could not grant the orders sought, including repossession of the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION CASE NO. 27 OF 2018
CELESTINE NZIOKI................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
LUCY NTINYARI ................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 21st November, 2018 the Applicant, Celestine Nzioki, filed a Notice of Motion pursuant to Section 2 of the Distress for Rent Act, Cap. 293, Rule 9 of the Auctioneers Rules, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act in which she prays for orders as follows:-
“a) That the application herein be certified urgent and service thereof be dispensed with at the first instance.
b) That Celestine Nzioki, is the legal owner authorized to get police escort from the OCS, Watamu Police Station to execute the distress for the rent against the Respondent in the Respondent’s premises on instructions issued in respect to distress rental house in Watamu.
c) That vacant possession to be given in the said rental house for the Plaintiff to check in.
d) That the Plaintiff be given authority to repossess the Motor Vehicle of Registration Number KBD 757D to recover her rent arrears.
e) Costs be provided for.”
2. The application is supported by the grounds on its face and an affidavit sworn by the Applicant on the date of the application.
3. The Respondent, Lucy Ntinyari, opposes the application through a Preliminary Objection filed on 30th November, 2018 on the grounds that:-
“1) The Applicant’s application is bad in law, fatally defective, incapable of being cured by way of amendment and or null and void ab-initio.
2) The application before the Hon. Court is not premised on any suit.
3) The Applicant is unlawfully posing as a bailiff who has unlawfully acted as such in attempting to levy distress over unfounded allegations of rent arrears.”
4. The Applicant’s pleadings discloses that the Respondent who has been her tenant for several years had defaulted in paying rent. She thus seeks to have her evicted. She also wants the court to give her authority to take over the Respondent’s motor vehicle.
5. The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant’s case is bad in law as her application is not premised on any plaint or originating summons.
6. A party who approaches the court for a remedy is under a duty to state the applicable law. Courts act based on the laws of the land. A landlord who desires to evict a tenant must follow the laid down procedure. A claim for eviction should be grounded on a plaint or any other pleading of such kind. There is no such pleading in this case.
7. The Applicant also appear to be saying that she wants the court to assist her to distress for rent. The Distress for Rent Act, Cap. 293 provides the applicable law for distraining for rent. This court cannot simply order that the Respondent’s car be given to the Applicant. The Applicant must follow the procedure established by the law in order to access the Respondent’s car.
8. In short, the Applicant’s application is irregular and without merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 8th day of May, 2019
W. Korir,
Judge of the High Court
Dated, Countersigned and Delivered at Malindi this 20th day of June, 2019
R. Nyakundi,
Judge of the High Court