[2002] KEHC 637 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a real and imminent danger of alienation or demolition of their houses, given the history of previous illegal allocations and demolitions by the Nairobi City Council. The replying affidavit was not sworn by the Town Clerk, who is the proper authority to speak for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 637 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Christopher Kibet; Defendant: Nairobi City Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 64 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Temporary injunction granted for six months.
- Judges
- AM Githinji
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Eviction, Allocation of Municipal Housing, Interlocutory Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher Kibet
Plaintiff
Nairobi City Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with their occupation of the suit premises.
- 2 Whether there is a real danger of alienation or demolition of the plaintiffs' houses by the defendant or third parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a real and imminent danger of alienation or demolition of their houses, given the history of previous illegal allocations and demolitions by the Nairobi City Council. The replying affidavit was not sworn by the Town Clerk, who is the proper authority to speak for the Council, and there was no denial from the Town Clerk regarding the alleged threats. In light of these factors, and to prevent irreparable harm, the court held that it was just and equitable to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation of the suit premises. However, the injunction was limited to a period...
Court Disposition
Temporary injunction granted for six months.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is granted in terms of prayer 2 of the application restraining the defendant from evicting, demolishing, or otherwise interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation of the suit premises for six months.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 64 OF 2002
CHRISTOPHER KIBET ……………….………..………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL……….....…………………..DEFENDANT
RULING
This is the plaintiff’s application to restrain the Nairobi City Council – Respondent from evicting demolishing or otherwise interfering with plaintiffs quite occupation and use of their respective house situate at Old Sewage Plot in Eastleigh South Nairobi.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Christopher Kibet and Oundo Onguambe.
They say that the plaintiffs are employees of Nairobi City Council and that they have been staying in the respective residential houses owed by respondent for over 10 years. They aver inter alia that people have got to the plot where the houses are situated to lay beacons saying that the houses have been allocated to them. Applicant further say that the plot has never been allocated by the respondent in Council Annual General meetings.
Mr. Tom Odongo, the Assistant Director City Planning has filed a replying affidavit.
He denies that Nairobi City council plans to have the plaintiffs premises demolished. He also denies that the Nairobi city council has allocated the premises to individuals.
The replying affidavit should have been sworn by the Town Clerk. Mr. Tom Odongo does not say that he has done personal investigations into the plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff have shown minutes of the Council showing that there has been previous illegal allocations. Mr. Kibet and Mr. Oundo Onguambe depose that in 1999 respondent allocated the premises where plaintiffs were living and plaintiffs were relocated to the present houses.
The Nairobi City council speaks through the Town Clerk and the Town Clerk has not denied that unknown people have claimed to have been allocated the premises and gone to the premises to place beacons. Considering the previous incident where the plaintiffs premises were demolished after the illegal allocation of the houses I am satisfied that plaintiffs have shown that there is the land in which their houses are located is in real danger of alienation and that it just and equitable to protect their interest.
Experience has shown that when an interlocutory injunction is granted in a suit of this kind, plaintiff’s case interest to prosecute the suit. That being the case the interlocutory injunction should be granted only for a reasonable period within which plaintiffs should take steps to prosecute the suit.
For the foregoing reasons I grant a temporary injunction in terms of prayer 2 of the application for 6 months only.
Costs in the cause.
E. M. Githinji
Judge
2. 30p.m
Mr. Okach present
Mr. Osore absent