[2012] KEHC 5006 (KLR)
The court held that it became functus officio upon adopting the consent judgment as its decision on 1st August 1997. Any alleged breach of the consent judgment by the respondent, such as unilateral rent increases or threats of eviction, should be addressed through contempt proceedings and not by seeking an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5006 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Gitonga Maina; Respondent: Municipal Council of Nyeri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 504 of 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion for Injunction
- Outcome
- motion dismissed and struck out with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Consent Judgments, Tenancy Disputes, Contempt of Court
- 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
John Gitonga Maina
Applicant
Municipal Council of Nyeri
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Motion for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can grant an injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the applicant's possession after a consent judgment was entered.
- 2 Whether the respondent's alleged actions constitute a breach of the consent judgment and contempt of court.
- 3 Whether the court is functus officio after adopting the consent judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it became functus officio upon adopting the consent judgment as its decision on 1st August 1997. Any alleged breach of the consent judgment by the respondent, such as unilateral rent increases or threats of eviction, should be addressed through contempt proceedings and not by seeking an injunction in the same proceedings. The applicant's motion for an injunction was therefore incompetent and without merit, as the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the orders sought after the consent judgment had been entered and adopted. The proper recourse for the applicant would have been to initiate contempt proceedings if he believed the respondent was in breach of the court's orders.
Court Disposition
motion dismissed and struck out with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The motion dated 4th October 2011 is struck out and dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CIVIL CASE NO. 504 OF 1993
JOHN GITONGA MAINA…...........................................APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NYERI…......………RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANT
RULING
John Gitonga Maina, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, took out the Motion dated 4th October 2011 in which he applied for the following orders:
(1)That the application be certified urgent and heard exparte in the first instance.
(2)That the defendant/Respondent, its servants or agents be restrained from harassing, evicting or in any other manner interfering with the plaintiffs possession of NYERI MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK III the suit premises until further orders of the court.
(3)That the Defendant has violated the court orders of 1st August 1997 and its actions are to this extent null and void.
(4)That the cost of this application be provided for.
The Applicant swore an affidavit he filed to support the Motion. Municipal Counsel of Nyeri, filed grounds of opposition to oppose the Motion.
I have considered the grounds set out on the face of the Motion plus the facts deponed in the supporting affidavit. I have also taken into account the grounds of opposition together with the oral submission of learned counsels. It is the submission of Mr. Waruingi, learned advocate for the Plaintiff/Applicant that judgment in this case was entered by the consent order recorded on 1st August 1997. In the aforesaid judgment the Plaintiff was to get a tenancy of the premises standing on Plot No. NYERI MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK IIIat a monthly rent of Kshs.500/= with effect from 1st October 1997 without vacant possession. The Plaintiff stated that he complied with the court order. It is alleged that the Defendant unilaterally increased the rent and has threatened to evict the Applicant thus he has come for the protection of this court. The Defendant is of the view that Motion lacks merit and amounts to an abuse of the court process. It is argued that the decree lapsed at the end of twelve years hence the court cannot go back to it. After a careful consideration of the rival submissions, it is clear in my mind that this suit was compromised on 1st August 1997 when the parties involved recorded a consent order. It is clear from the consent judgment that the Plaintiff was given a fresh tenancy for the kitchen and the open space in the premises standing on Plot No. NYERI MUNICIPALITY/BLOCK III at a monthly rent of Ksh.500 with effect from 1st October 1997. It is alleged that the Defendant has breached the consent judgment by unilaterally increasing the rent and by threatening to evict the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant is in contempt of court orders. I have anxiously considered the allegations made against the Defendant. The Defendant has not controverted those allegations. The main order sought for by the Plaintiff is that of injunction. I am not convinced that the order is available using these proceedings. In my view the court becamefunctus officiowhen it adopted the consent judgment as its decision. If either party breaches the terms of the judgment then it is upon the aggrieved party to take out contempt proceedings which is not the case here. The record indicates that the Plaintiff had a renewal tenancy relationship with the Defendant for five years each. If the Plaintiff was given a fresh tenancy to run from 1st October 1997, I presume that the same was to run for five (5) years and would automatically be renewed at the expiry of each term. In the end I find the Motion to be without merit and incompetently before this court. The same is ordered struck out and dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 20th day of January 2012.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Mayaka holding brief Wahome Gikonyo for the Respondent and Mr. Waruingi for the Applicant.