[2007] KEHC 1218 (KLR)
The court found that there exists an understanding between the defendant and the trustees of the retirement scheme whereby certain employees or former employees are allowed to remain in their allocated houses until their retirement dues are settled. The plaintiff, being similarly situated and still contesting the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1218 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josua Omondi Awuor; Defendant: Kenya Railways Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1016 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction (chamber Summons)
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted
- Judges
- JM Khamoni
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Termination of Employment, Employee Housing Rights, Eviction, Allocation of Corporate Housing
- 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
Josua Omondi Awuor
Plaintiff
Kenya Railways Corporation
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction (chamber Summons)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting him from the suit premises pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the defendant retains any legal control over the suit premises after transfer to the retirement scheme trustees.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff should be treated similarly to other former employees allowed to remain in the houses until settlement of dues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there exists an understanding between the defendant and the trustees of the retirement scheme whereby certain employees or former employees are allowed to remain in their allocated houses until their retirement dues are settled. The plaintiff, being similarly situated and still contesting the legality of his termination and entitlement to terminal benefits, should not be treated differently. The court held that granting the injunction would prevent disturbance to the plaintiff and allow the main suit to be concluded expeditiously. The balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo until the determination of the suit, and the plaintiff had established a...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted
Orders
- The chamber summons dated 25th September 2007 is granted in terms of prayers numbers 2 and 3.
- Prayer number 2, restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with the plaintiff's occupation of the suit premises, is granted until determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Suit 1016 of 2006
JOSUA OMONDI AWUOR ………………..………....… PLAINTIFF/APPLICATION
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION ………..……DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
Chambers summons dated 25th September 2007 brought under order XXXIX Rules 1,2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act praying for orders.
“That the Defendants/Respondents their servants and /or agents be restrained by an order of temporary injunction from in anyway evicting or interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful occupation and enjoyment of House No. VI 18 Door 4 Jogoo/Likoni Road, Makongeni Estate Nairobi.”
The Applicant has told the court that he was a permanent and pensionable employee of the Respondents for 24 years and five months when the Respondents terminated the employment on what the Applicant calls illegal termination. By virtue of that employment the Applicant had been lawfully allocated the suit house and wants to continue living in the house when he is still fighting what he calls illegal termination of his employment by the Defendant in this suit where he claims his terminal benefits. He claims that before that stage is reached the Defendant either directly or indirectly now wants to evict him from the house in which he lives with his family.
It is revealed that the houses were transferred by the Defendants to the Trustees of the Kenya Railways Corporation Retirement Scheme and that the Respondents retained use of the houses which were being occupied by their current and former employees not yet paid their retirement dues and the Respondents authorized the said employees, to remain in their respective houses and letter of authority written to the Trustees of the Retirement Scheme with copies to affected employees. The Applicant was not given such letter and instead he is being threatened with eviction.
On the other hand, this application is opposed by the Respondents on the basis tht the houses having been transferred as aforesaid, the Respondents no longer have legal control. It is stated the case cannot be brought within the Principles found in the case of Giella vs. Cassmen Brown.
This Chamber Summons interrupted hearing of the main suit which may have been concluded by now and I thought the parties would reach a consent in the Chamber Summons and gave them time. They told me they could not reach consent hence hearing of this Chamber Summons.
From what has been said as a whole, it would appear the Defendants and the people to whom the houses are said to have been transferred seem to have some understanding whereby certain employees or former employees of the Defendants are allowed to remain in their respective houses until their dues are settled and in the circumstances, I do not see why the Plaintiff should not be treated as one of those employees even if he has brought the Defendants to this court. It remains only cross examination of the Plaintiff and the hearing of his only one witness before the hearing is closed for judgment to be delivered as the Defence say they are offering no evidence. We would by now have concluded the case had it not been because of this Chamber Summons which I feel should be granted to prevent disturbance to the Plaintiff to enable him concentrate on this case to have it finalized and be determined quickly to leave the Defendants free from the Plaintiff.
That being the position, the Chamber Summons dated 25th September 2007 be and is hereby granted in terms of prayers numbers 2 and 3, prayer number 2 being granted until the determination of this suit.
Dated this 5th Day of December 2007.
J.M. KHAMONI
JUDGE