[2020] KEELC 325 (KLR)
The court found that the application for review was merited because the 1st defendant had now included the 2nd defendant as a co-beneficiary of the rent deposited in court, addressing the earlier concern that only one defendant was seeking the funds. The court observed that both defendants were entitled to the rent,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 325 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Ndumba (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mwirichia M’Angare); Defendant: M’Ibiri M’Bogori; Defendant: Justus Muruga M’Ikiugu; Interested Party: Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 100 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Release of Rent Deposited in Court
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Release of Rent, Court Deposit, Review of Orders, Entitlement to Rent
- 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
Henry Ndumba (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mwirichia M’Angare)
Plaintiff
M’Ibiri M’Bogori
Defendant
Justus Muruga M’Ikiugu
Defendant
Standard Chartered Bank of Kenya Ltd
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Release of Rent Deposited in Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants are entitled to the release of rent deposited in court in respect of parcel MERU MUNICIPALITY/11/BLOCK/97.
- 2 Whether the previous order disallowing release of rent should be reviewed or discharged.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for review was merited because the 1st defendant had now included the 2nd defendant as a co-beneficiary of the rent deposited in court, addressing the earlier concern that only one defendant was seeking the funds. The court observed that both defendants were entitled to the rent, as previously indicated in the plaintiff's affidavit, and therefore ordered the release of the rent to both in equal shares. The court also noted the absence of submissions from the respondent and found no reason to deny the application. The application was allowed with no order as to costs, and the file was closed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The rent deposited in court in respect of parcel MERU MUNICIPALITY/11/BLOCK/97 shall be released to the 1st and 2nd defendants in equal shares.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 100 OF 2002
HENRY NDUMBA
(Suing as the legal representative of the estate of MWIRICHIA M’ANGARE......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M’IBIRI M’BOGORI.......................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JUSTUS MURUGA M’IKIUGU...................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
AND
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF KENYA LTD........................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application dated 15. 5.2020 where the applicant/ 1st defendant is seeking for an order to review, discharge the order of 30. 4.2020 disallowing the applicant’s prayer for the release of the rent deposited in court in respect of parcel MERU MUNICIPALITY/11/BLOCK/97.
2. The applicant prays that the rent deposited in court vide a court order of 10. 11. 2004 be released to him and the 2nd defendant. He contends that the earlier prayer made for the money to be released to him was made in good faith because he is the one who had been collecting rent and utilizing the same.
3. The respondent has filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application.However, he has dwelt on the issue of service and the fact that he has a pending application. I note that he is represented in this matter. The last time the matter was in court when a date for ruling was given was on 1/10/2020 and his advocate undertook to file submissions by the close of business that day. However, I have not seen any such submissions.
4. In paragraph 8 of my ruling of 30. 4.2020, I had observed as follows “In the affidavit of the plaintiff, in support of his application dated 26. 10. 2004, he had averred that“defendants” were receiving money from the tenants which would imply that 1st defendant is not the only one who was entitled to the rent alone……”
5. The 1st defendant has now incorporated the 2nd defendant where he request that the monies be released to both of them in equal shares. I find that the application is merited. The same is allowed with no orders as to costs. File closed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS14THDAY OFDECEMBER, 2020
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE
ORDER
The date of delivery of this ruling was given via a notice dated 7. 12. 2020. In light of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemicand following the practice directions issued by his Lordship, the Chief Justice dated 17th March, 2020 and published in the Kenya Gazette of 17th April 2020 as Gazette Notice no.3137, this ruling has been delivered to the parties by electronic mail. They are deemed to have waived compliance with order 21 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court.
HON. LUCY N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE