[2002] KEHC 861 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant had wrongfully and unlawfully evicted the respondent from the premises without following due process or seeking legal recourse. The appellant failed to demonstrate any breach of tenancy by the respondent or any compelling reason for the grant of stay. The court noted that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 861 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Godfrey Kihika; Respondent: Daniel Odhiambo Dundi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 35 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Tenancy Disputes, Eviction Procedure, Stay of Execution
- 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
Godfrey Kihika
Appellant
Daniel Odhiambo Dundi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a stay of execution of the Rent Restriction Tribunal's orders pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of stay.
- 3 Whether the eviction of the respondent was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant had wrongfully and unlawfully evicted the respondent from the premises without following due process or seeking legal recourse. The appellant failed to demonstrate any breach of tenancy by the respondent or any compelling reason for the grant of stay. The court noted that the appellant did not raise any substantial issue before the Tribunal and that the appeal did not have high chances of success. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed as the appellant did not meet the threshold for such relief.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2002
GODFREY KIHIKA ……………………………….... APPELLANT
VERSUS
DANIEL ODHIAMBO DUNDI ………………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This application dated 5th and filed in court on 6th February, 2002 is for stay of execution of the ruling and orders of the Rent Restriction Tribunal made on 1st February, 2002 in Rent Restriction case No. 21 of 2002 at Nairobi until the final determination of the appeal lodged herein.
The grounds on which the application is based are stated on the body of the application and also in the supporting affidavit.
Though full proceedings are not on this file it would appear the applicant had evicted the respondent from his premises for whatever reason.
He filed an application under certificate of urgency to apply for reinstatement into the premises.
When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the appellant could not explain how the tenancy between him and the respondent came to an end.
The appellants’ worry was that if an order for reinstatement was made it would disturb the new tenant already in the premises; otherwise the respondent had established that the tenancy had been wrongfully and unlawfully terminated.
The Chairman of the tribunal made the order for reinstatement of the respondent into the premises, hence the present application.
It was wrong for the appellant to evict the respondent from the suit premises to put in another tenant.
During the hearing of the application in the Tribunal, the applicant never complained against the respondent for breaching any of the terms of the tenancy.
When he evicted the respondent from the suit premises he had no regard for the law and did not seek its aid.
But now the same law has caught up with him, the appellant realizes it can come to his aid. On what basis?
The ruling of the Chairman of the tribunal does not indicate anything which could favour the appellant on appeal.
He appears to have raised no issue at the Tribunal at all worth the court’s consideration?
Contrary to his assertion that the appeal has high chances of success, I do not see such high chances.
This is one application I am disinclined to grant and I dismiss the same with costs.
Delivered this 25th day of February, 2002.
D.K.S AGANYANYA
JUDGE