[2021] KEELC 1266 (KLR)
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it concerned a landlord-tenant relationship, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal. Furthermore, the plaint was defective for failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the absence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 1266 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Harold Wafula; Defendant: Allan Ragi; Defendant: Mary Mueni
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 71 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out for want of jurisdiction and procedural defects
- Judges
- JE Gicheru
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Tenant Landlord Disputes, Pleadings Requirements
- 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
Harold Wafula
Plaintiff
Allan Ragi
Defendant
Mary Mueni
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear disputes between tenants and landlords.
- 2 Whether the plaint is defective for failure to comply with mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding pending suits and verification affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it concerned a landlord-tenant relationship, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal. Furthermore, the plaint was defective for failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the absence of an averment regarding other pending suits and the lack of a verifying affidavit. The existence of a parallel suit between the same parties over the same subject matter at the Rent Restriction Tribunal further supported the conclusion that the suit was improperly before the court. Consequently, the court struck out the suit with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit struck out for want of jurisdiction and procedural defects
Orders
- The entire suit is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KAJIADO
ELC CASE NO. 071 OF 2020
HAROLD WAFULA................................PLAINTIFF
-VS-
ALLAN RAGI...............................1ST DEFENDANT
MARY MUENI............................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This ruling is on the preliminary objection dated 11th August, 2020.
The said objection is to the effect that this suit is an abuse of the court process as there exists a similar suit at the Rent Restriction Tribunal, Nairobi CMC No. 387 of 2020 ( Harold Wafula –vs- Allan Ragi)which is still pending for hearing and determination.
I have considered the entire record comprising of the plaint, affidavits, annexures and submissions by both sides.
I find that this suit is not properly before this court for the following reasons;
Firstly, the jurisdiction of this court in Article 162 (2) (b) of the constitution and Section 13 (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act (Act No. 19 of 2011), does not include disputes between tenants and landlords.
Such disputes fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Rent Restriction Tribunal. It is trite law that where a court lacks jurisdiction, it downs its tools. This has the holding in the case of Mukhisa Biscuits Manufacturers Ltd –vs- West End Distributers Ltd ( 1969) E.A. 696.
Secondly, the plaint dated 19/6/2020 is defective for failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Law namely Order Rules 1 (1) (f) and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provide as follows;
1 (1) The plaint shall contain the following particulars
(f) An averment that there is no other pending suit, and that there have been no previous proceedings in any court between the plaintiff and the defendant over the same subject matter and that the cause of action relates to the plaintiff named in the plaint.
(2) The plaint shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the plaintiff, verifying the correctness of the averments contained in Rule 1(1) (f) above.
The plaint lacks these two basic requirements.
One may ask whether the plaintiff may be given a chance to salvage his case so that it does not seem as if the Court is pre-occupied with technicalities.
The answer to that would be that the Court is already aware of the existence of Rent Restriction Case No. 387 of 2020 between the same parties in this case over the same subject matter.
Be that as it may, the absence of jurisdiction as stated above leaves no other option but to strike out the entire suit with costs to the defendant.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021.
M.N. GICHERU
JUDGE