[2014] KEHC 560 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 560 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take steps to prosecute the intended appeal and had continued to occupy the suit premises for two years without paying rent, which was unfair to the defendants. The court held that the initial deposit did not compensate the defendants for ongoing occupation and that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 560 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Emmy Bunei; Defendant: Christine Wangari Munga; Defendant: David Mwaura
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 290 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Further Security Deposit and Related Orders Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed. Plaintiff ordered to deposit further sum as security; default leads to liberty to enforce eviction.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Security for Due Performance, Stay of Execution, Rent Arrears, Appeal Delay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Security for Due Performance Stay of Execution Rent Arrears Appeal Delay

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmy Bunei

Plaintiff

Christine Wangari Munga

Defendant

David Mwaura

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Further Security Deposit and Related Orders Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to deposit a further sum as security pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue occupying the suit premises without paying rent during the pendency of the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to enforce eviction orders in default of further deposit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had failed to take steps to prosecute the intended appeal and had continued to occupy the suit premises for two years without paying rent, which was unfair to the defendants. The court held that the initial deposit did not compensate the defendants for ongoing occupation and that the plaintiff could not continue to enjoy the status quo without consideration. Exercising its discretion under Section 34 and inherent powers under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the court ordered the plaintiff to deposit a further sum of Kshs 540,000 into the specified bank account within 30 days, failing which the defendants would be at liberty to enforce the eviction...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Plaintiff ordered to deposit further sum as security; default leads to liberty to enforce eviction.

Orders

  • Plaintiff/Respondent shall deposit a further sum of Kshs 540,000 into account No. 001906371002 at Chase Bank Limited within 30 days of the ruling.
  • In default of deposit, the defendants shall be at liberty to enforce the eviction order given on 12th May, 2012.