[2024] KEHC 865 (KLR)
The application for eviction orders was dismissed because the 4th and 5th defendants, although joined as parties, had not filed any defence or substantive pleading upon which the application could be anchored. The Court found that there was no basis in the pleadings to grant the eviction orders sought. The absence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 865 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Juliet Kristen P. Duckworth; Defendant: Michael John Stanhope Duckworth; Defendant: Geohut Limited; Defendant: I&M Bank Limited; Defendant: Idah Gatwiri Marangu; Defendant: Daniel Mue Peter
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Commercial Suit 485 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Suit / Ruling on Application for Eviction Orders Post Auction
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Jurisdiction of Court, Public Auction Sale, Injunctive Relief, Possession of Property
- 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
Juliet Kristen P. Duckworth
Plaintiff
Michael John Stanhope Duckworth
Defendant
Geohut Limited
Defendant
I&M Bank Limited
Defendant
Idah Gatwiri Marangu
Defendant
Daniel Mue Peter
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Suit / Ruling on Application for Eviction Orders Post Auction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant eviction orders in respect of immovable property following a public auction.
- 2 Whether the application for eviction is competent in the absence of a defence or substantive pleading by the applicants.
- 3 Whether the applicants, as purchasers at auction, are entitled to immediate possession and eviction of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for eviction orders was dismissed because the 4th and 5th defendants, although joined as parties, had not filed any defence or substantive pleading upon which the application could be anchored. The Court found that there was no basis in the pleadings to grant the eviction orders sought. The absence of a denial of the plaintiff's claim or a substantive prayer for eviction rendered the application incompetent. The Court declined to address the jurisdictional issue, finding the lack of proper pleadings dispositive. Accordingly, the application was found to be without merit and dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 20/3/2023 seeking eviction orders is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
Duckworth v Duckworth & 4 others (Commercial Suit 485 of 2017) [2024] KEHC 865 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (30 January 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 865 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Commercial Suit 485 of 2017
A Mabeya, J
January 30, 2024
Between
Juliet Kristen P. Duckworth
Plaintiff
and
Michael John Stanhope Duckworth
1st Defendant
Geohut Limited
2nd Defendant
I&M Bank Limited
3rd Defendant
Idah Gatwiri Marangu
4th Defendant
Daniel Mue Peter
5th Defendant
Ruling
1. Before Court is the application dated 20/3/2023 brought under Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks eviction orders against the plaintiff pursuant to the ruling delivered on 28/10/2022 from the parcel of land known as Ngong/Ngong 37632 (“the suit property”). That the OCS Rongai Police Station be ordered to supervise the eviction.
2. In support of the application, the applicant relied on the grounds on the face of it and the supporting affidavit of Idah Gatwiri Marangu sworn on 20/3/2023. It was averred that the 4th and 5th defendant jointly purchased the suit property at a public auction on 25/8/2020 and transferred to them on 21/5/2021. That they had been unable to take possession of the said property for two years since the purchase.
3. That the 4th and 5th defendant were running losses in monthly rent as they have to seek accommodation elsewhere despite being the rightful owners of the suit property. That in its ruling of 28/10/2022, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s prayer for an injunction and therefore the applicants have the right to use the suit property.
4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff vide grounds of opposition dated 22/5/2023. The plaintiff averred that the application was incurable defective as the Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the orders sought as the same was under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011.
5. The parties filed their respective submissions which I have considered. The applicants submitted that the plaintiff’s refusal to vacate the property was a violation of their rights to property. That any dispute concerning the chargee and chargor with respect to the validity of sale did not affect the applicants. That the applicants were bonafide purchasers for value thus protected by the law and that the plaintiff was not protected by any injunctive orders.
6. The plaintiff submitted that eviction was regulated by the land legislation and the Environment and Land Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of eviction.
7. I have considered the pleadings and the submissions on record. The applicants have moved the Court seeking to have the plaintiff evicted from the suit property. The plaintiff was the registered owner of the suit property. She offered the same as security for financial security offered to her by the bank. Upon default, the property was sold to the 4th and 5th defendant. In its ruling dated 28/10/2022, the Court held that the property had passed title and that therefore, the applicants were protected from an irregular sale and that the plaintiff’s remedy, if any, lied in damages.
8. In her submissions, the respondent challenges the jurisdiction of this Court stating that the matters occupation and eviction from immoveable property are the preserve of the Environment and Land Court. It is the respondent’s case that on the foregoing, the applicants ought to have sought eviction orders from the Environment and Land Court.
9. I have looked at the ruling of this Court of 28/10/2022 on which the current application is pegged on. In that ruling, the Court made several orders. One of them was to join the 4th and 5th defendant. The Court directed that they file and serve their defence to the suit within 14 days. I have looked in the CTS and found that as at the date of writing this ruling, no defence had been filed.
10. That being the case, although the 4th and 5th defendants are already parties, on what pleading is the current application based on? Nothing! On what basis would the Court make an eviction order when there is neither a denial of the plaintiff’s claim nor a any substantive prayer to that effect. I don’t think the order sought can validly issue.
11. On that ground alone, I find the application to be without merit and dismiss the same with costs. I see no reason to address the issue of jurisdiction.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024. A. MABEYA, FCI ArbJUDGE