[2008] KEHC 1211 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had established lawful ownership of the premises through assignments made with the Defendant's consent, as evidenced by the annexed documents and prior court orders. The Defendant, having been served, failed to oppose the application or appear in court. In the absence of any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1211 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Gikubu Mbuthia; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 15 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Ex Parte Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Application allowed as prayed with costs to the Plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Notices, Repossession of Property, Title Certificates, Assignment 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
George Gikubu Mbuthia
Plaintiff
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Ex Parte Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the Defendant to re-open the specified premises.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff should guarantee not to evict tenants after repairs and reinstatement of new tenants.
- 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to have the specified plots minuted in his name and to be issued with certificates of title.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had established lawful ownership of the premises through assignments made with the Defendant's consent, as evidenced by the annexed documents and prior court orders. The Defendant, having been served, failed to oppose the application or appear in court. In the absence of any opposition and based on the Plaintiff's uncontroverted affidavit and supporting documents, the court granted all the orders sought by the Plaintiff, including reopening of the premises, guarantee regarding tenants, and minuting and issuance of title certificates for the specified plots.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as prayed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Orders
- The Defendant is ordered to re-open premises known as C.7035, C.1117, C.1217, C.1026 and C.1930 Dandora Phase III, Nairobi.
- The Plaintiff shall guarantee not to evict tenants from the said premises after repair and reinstatement of new tenants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 15 of 2003
GEORGE GIKUBU MBUTHIA………..………....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI..…….................DEFENDANT
RULING
Notice of motion dated 20. 08. 2008 by the Plaintiff.
This motion was heard exparte because although there is an affidavit of service filed, the Respondent failed to turn up. The prayers sought by the Applicant/Plaintiff are that:
1. The Respondent be ordered to re-open premises known as C.7035, C.1117, C.1217, C.1026 and C.1930 Dandora Phase III, Nairobi.
2. That the Plaintiff give guarantee that it will not evict tenants from the said premises after repair and reinstated new tenants.
3. That the plots C.1217, C.1117, C.1026 and C.1930 be minuted as belonging to the Applicant and consent to issue certificates of tittles be given. The application is based on grounds set out and the affidavit of Applicant. The Applicant states that all the premises aforementioned are lawfully his by virtue of assignments made to him with the consent of the Defendant exhibited as “GGM 1-5. ”
4. The Applicant has also exhibited orders made in his favour in High Court Case No. 1874 of 1988 between him and the Defendant including a final decree in that case.
Further, the Plaintiff has exhibited “Eviction/Repossession Notices” issued by the Defendant in the year 2000. These notices are addressed to the original assignors of the said plots to the Plaintiff exhibited as “GGM 8” “GGM 8e.”
There is no opposition to his application and in view of the contents of the Plaintiffs affidavit and annexures thereto, I allow the application and grant all orders as prayed with costs to the Plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
DATED this 21st day of October 2008.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE