[1998] KEHC 220 (KLR)
The court found that by serving a three-month termination notice, the respondent had acknowledged the applicant as a tenant, contradicting his claim that the applicant was a trespasser. However, since the applicant had already been evicted prior to the court's consideration, there was no status quo to preserve...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 220 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Hellon Owiti Wandolo; Defendant: Nahashon Mativo; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2485 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Reinstatement Pending Tribunal Determination
- Outcome
- Partial relief granted; reinstatement denied; order issued to prevent leasing to third parties pending Tribunal decision.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Eviction, Injunctive Relief, Tribunal Jurisdiction
- 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
Hellon Owiti Wandolo
Plaintiff
Nahashon Mativo
Defendant
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Reinstatement Pending Tribunal Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement to the suit premises pending determination of the dispute by the Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the respondent recognised the applicant as a tenant.
- 3 Whether the High Court can grant injunctive relief after eviction has already occurred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that by serving a three-month termination notice, the respondent had acknowledged the applicant as a tenant, contradicting his claim that the applicant was a trespasser. However, since the applicant had already been evicted prior to the court's consideration, there was no status quo to preserve through injunctive relief. The court held that its powers were limited to maintaining the status quo pending the Tribunal's decision, but could not order reinstatement after eviction. The only appropriate order was to prevent the suit premises from being leased to a third party until the Tribunal resolved the dispute.
Court Disposition
Partial relief granted; reinstatement denied; order issued to prevent leasing to third parties pending Tribunal decision.
Orders
- The suit premises shall not be leased to a third party before the dispute is finalised by the Tribunal.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE 2485 OF 1998
1 HELLON OWITI WANDOLO………………..……PLAINTIFF
- Versus-
1. NAHASHON MATIVO………………………..) ) DEFENDANT 2. CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI……………….)
RULING
The applicant was a tenant on plot No. 519 Dandora Phase 1 belonging to the Respondent.
How he came into occupation is not an issue at this stage and it is not for this court to determine the legality or otherwise of the tenancy.
On 18. 8.1998 the respondent/landlord served the applicant/tenant with a 3 months notice terminating the tenancy. On 21. 8.1998 the applicant filed a reference to the Tribunal in compliance with section 6 of the Landlord and (Tenant/Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishment) Act Cap. 301. The dispute was registered as No. 303 of 1998 and it was fixed for hearing on 10-11-1998. But on 9. 11. 1998 the respondent without waiting for the dispute to be heard and determined by the Tribunal forcefully throw the applicant out of the suit premises.
The applicant sought orders to direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant to the suit premises pending the hearing and determination of the dispute now before the Tribunal.
In his submissions, the respondent alleges that the applicant was not his tenant and that if anything he was a trespasser.
As I have said earlier the respondent had served the applicant with a 3 months notice terminating his tenancy.
That fact alone is enough evidence that he had recognised the applicant as his tenant. He cannot now turn round and deny that fact. However, disputes over tenancy are a preservation of the Tribunal which is now handling the matter.
This courts powers are limited only to preserving the status quo by issuing an order of injunction to restrain the landlord from evicting the tenant before the Tribunal settles the dispute. Now that the applicant has already been evicted, there is nothing to be preserved.
The only order I issue now is that the suit premises should not be leased to a 3rd party before the dispute is finalised by the Tribunal.
These are the orders of this court.
Costs be costs in the cause.
Delivered this 25th day of November, 1998.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE