[2018] KEHC 2730 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's claim that the properties were in danger of being sold for land rates arrears was not supported by the evidence, as the respondent had settled the outstanding amounts by the relevant date. The appellant failed to establish a legal basis or locus standi to collect rent on behalf...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2730 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Godfrey Kimani Mwangi; Respondent: Kanorero Wendani Co. Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 547 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Land Rates Arrears, Rent Collection Disputes, Locus Standi, Interlocutory Applications
- 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 Kimani Mwangi
Appellant
Kanorero Wendani Co. Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be allowed to collect rent from the suit properties pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the respondent's directors should be compelled to render a full statement of rent collected as at May 2018.
- 3 Whether the appellant has locus standi to collect rent on behalf of the respondent company.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's claim that the properties were in danger of being sold for land rates arrears was not supported by the evidence, as the respondent had settled the outstanding amounts by the relevant date. The appellant failed to establish a legal basis or locus standi to collect rent on behalf of the respondent company, as he was not a director and no resolution had authorized him to do so. Additionally, the appellant did not provide sufficient grounds or justification for the order requiring the respondent's directors to render a full statement of rent collected. Consequently, the court held that the motion lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The motion dated 29.5.2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2011
GODFREY KIMANI MWANGI...........................................APPELLANT
-V E R S U S –
KANORERO WENDANI CO. LIMITED........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1) Godfrey Kimani Mwangi, the appellant herein, took out the motion dated 29. 5.2018 whereof he sought for the following orders:
a) THAT this honourable court be pleased to allow the appellant to collect rent in respect of L.R PLOT NAIROBI/BLOCK 36/VII, KANORERO WENDANI HOUSE, EASTLEIGH SECTION 7 and L.R PLOT NAIROBI/BLOCK 116/630 for purposes of paying property rates to Nairobi City County pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
b) THAT this honourable court be pleased to order the respondent’s directors to render full statement of rent they have collected in respect of L.R PLOT NAIROBI/BLOCK 36/320/VII, KANORERO WENDANI HOUSE, EASTLEIGH SECTION 7 and L.R. PLOT NAIROBI/BLOCK 116/630 as at May, 2018.
c) THAT the costs of this application be paid by the respondent.
2) The appellant filed an affidavit he swore in support of the motion while Kanorero Wendani Co. Ltd, the respondent herein, filed the replying affidavit of Andrew Macharia Gikuyu to oppose the motion. When the motion came up interpartes hearing this court issued orders directing the parties to file written submissions.
3) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the in the affidavit filed in support and against the application plus the rival written submissions.
4) It is the averment of the appellant that he is the registered owner of plot no. Nairobi/Block 36/329/vii, Kanorero Wendani House, Eastleigh Section 7 and plot no. Nairobi/Block 116/630.
5) He further submitted that the directors of the respondent have failed to pay rates in respect of the above mentioned properties to the tune of ksh.65,624/= and ksh.113,581/= respectively. He averred that his properties risk being sold to recover the outstanding land rates. It is for the above reason that the appellant is before this court praying to be granted the orders sought in the motion dated 29. 5.2018.
6) The respondent on the other hand argued that the motion is a non-starter, incompetent defective and amounts to an abuse of process. It is the respondent’s submission that the motion lacks merit. It is argued that the appellant lacks the locus standi to collect rent in respect of the aforementioned properties since he is not a director of the respondent.
7) It is also stated that the respondent has not passed any resolution to authorise the appellant to collect rent on its behalf. The respondent stated that it has been paying land rates therefore it cannot lie in the mouth of the appellant to allege that land rates have not been paid. The respondent attached to the replying affidavit of Andrew Macharia Gikuyu copies of property rates payment request which indicates that the outstanding land rates stood at ksh.25,500/= and 4,375/= respectively as of 21. 6.2018.
8) The main ground in which the appellant bases his application t be allowed to collect rent is that the properties are in arrears of land rates to a cumulative sum of ksh.179,000/= as of 28. 5.2018. It would appear the aforesaid amount had been settled by the respondent as of 21. 6.2018. It is therefore not true that the properties are in danger of being sold to recover land rates.
9) The other prayer sought is for an order to direct the respondent’s directors to render a full statement of rent they have collected inrespect of the suit properties as of May 2018.
10) The appellant did not lay any basis for this prayer in his application and in his submissions. Consequently, I find no merit in the prayer.
11) In the end, the motion lacks merit, it is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 19th day of October, 2018.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
........................................for the Appellant
........................................for the Respondents