[2011] KEHC 2534 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any evidence of a tenancy relationship with the defendant, such as a tenancy agreement or proof of rent payment. The only documents produced were letters from the Municipal Council addressed to the defendant, which did not establish the applicants' status as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2534 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James G. Njoroge & 16 Others; Defendant: Ziporah Njeri Mburu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 73 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- RPV Wendoh
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Tenancy Disputes, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Harm
- 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
James G. Njoroge & 16 Others
Plaintiff
Ziporah Njeri Mburu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their alleged tenancy.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of a tenancy relationship with the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any evidence of a tenancy relationship with the defendant, such as a tenancy agreement or proof of rent payment. The only documents produced were letters from the Municipal Council addressed to the defendant, which did not establish the applicants' status as tenants or any threat of eviction. Consequently, the applicants did not demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success or that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The court therefore declined to grant the interim injunction sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 31/3/2011 is dismissed.
- The applicants to bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL CASE NO. 73 OF 2011
JAMES G. NJOROGE & 16 OTHERS…………..............…….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ZIPORAH NJERI MBURU………………………........................DEFENDANT
RULING
By a plaint dated 31/3/2011, the 17 plaintiffs who claim to be the tenants of the defendant in the suit premises Plot No. 1144/VI/2 situate at Naivasha seek an order of permanent injunction to issue, restraining the defendant from disrupting, remaining, evicting, harassing the plaintiffs and or interfering with the tenancy premises and secondly, that rent payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant be deposited in this court.
Filed simultaneously with the plaint is the Notice Motion of the same date in which the applicants seek the following orders:-
2. That the defendant/respondent herein her servants, agents, associates and or any other persons herein be and are hereby restrained from disrupting, removing, evicting, harassing the plaintiffs and or interfering with the tenancy premises known as Plot No. 114/vi/7 situate at Naivasha town including causing threatened repairs thereto inter alia and or adversely dealing with the applicants tenancy premises pending interpartes hearing of this application.
3. That the defendant herein her servants, agents, associates and or any other person herein be and is hereby restrained from distrupting, removing evicting, harassing the plaintiffs and or interfering with the teanancy premises known as Plot No. 1144/vi/7 situate at Naivahsa town including causing threatened repairs thereto inter alia and or adversely dealing with the applicants tenancy premises pending the hearing and determination of this application and suit.
The application is based on grounds found on the face of the application and an affidavit sworn by James G. Njoroge, the 1st applicant. The applicants described themselves as tenants in the suit premises Plot No. 1144/vi/7, Naivasha where they engage in different kinds of businesses. They contend that as from January 2011 the defendant/respondent has been demanding that they vacate the premises and demanding the signing of leases for increment of rent. On 24th and 31/3/2011 they were threatened with eviction by some people who did not have any eviction order from the court. The applicants are apprehensive that the respondent wants to remove them from the said premises and is colluding with the Municipal Council to write contradictory letters about the premises – the same are exhibited as TGM1. They contend that the procedure for condemning the premises has not been followed.
The applicants filed an affidavit of service in which it is deponed that the defendant/respondent was served with the notice of motion and plaint, but declined to acknowledge service. That is why the court went ahead to hear this application ex parte. Though counsel seems to indicate that this is not the hearing of the application inter partes, but when counsel appeared before J. Emukule, the Judge directed that the application be served for inter partes hearing. This was the inter partes hearing.
The application is unopposed. Even if that is the case, the applicants must demonstrate that they are deserving of an order of injunction by establishing from the facts that they have a prima facie case with good chances of success and that if the order of injunction is not granted the applicants are likely to suffer irreparable loss or damage that cannot be compensated in damages and if the court is in doubt, to decide on a balance of convenience. (see GIELLA V CASSMAN BROWN LTD 1973 EA 358)
Apart from alleging that they are tenants of the defendants, the applicants have not placed any material before this court as evidence of their tenancy. There is no tenancy agreement or evidence of payment of rents to the respondent or any other evidence. I find that the applicants have not demonstrated that there exists any tenancy relationship between them and the respondent to entitle them to an order of injunction. The only documents exhibited are addressed to the defendant by the Muncipal Council of Naivasha but not evidence that the applicants are threatened with eviction or that they are the tenants. The court find that the applicants have not demonstrated that they have a prima facie case with good chances of success or that they will suffer irreparably if the order of temporary injunction is not granted. This court declines to grant the interim order sought against the defendant. The Notice of Motion dated 31/3/2011 is hereby dismissed. The applicant to bear costs of the application.
DATED and DELIVERED this 14th day of April 2011.
R.P.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
PRESENT:
………………………………….for the plaintiff.
…………………………………for the defendant.
Kennedy – Court Clerk.