[2020] KEELC 274 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her case on a balance of probabilities. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was already in possession of the house, and the defendant had vacated the premises by the time the suit was filed. There was no lease agreement produced, and the alleged landlord,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 274 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary W. Nyongesa; Defendant: Anthony Mugala
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 94 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit dismissed
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Dispute, Vacant Possession, Rent Arrears
- 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
Mary W. Nyongesa
Plaintiff
Anthony Mugala
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the demised premises.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rent arrears from the defendant.
- 3 Whether the defendant was still in occupation of the premises at the time of filing suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her case on a balance of probabilities. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was already in possession of the house, and the defendant had vacated the premises by the time the suit was filed. There was no lease agreement produced, and the alleged landlord, Nicholas, did not testify. The plaintiff could not establish that the defendant was in occupation or owed rent arrears at the material time. Consequently, the claim for vacant possession and rent arrears could not stand, and the suit was dismissed.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiff's suit is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 94 OF 2015
MARY W. NYONGESA ......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANTHONY MUGALA....DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff avers that at all material times to this suit the plaintiff is the proprietor and land lady in respect of the demised premises known as Amalemba site and Service Scheme Phase 1, House No. 43 whereas the defendant is the tenant in respect of the said premises. The plaintiff avers that the defendant has not been paying the agreed rent as and when it is due and is in arrears and has become a persistent defaulter. On 4th of December, 2014 the plaintiff gave the defendant notice terminating the defendant’s said tenancy with effect from 31st of January, 2015. Despite being duly notified as stated, the defendant has not voluntarily moved out of the demised premises and persists in such failure to date hence this suit. The plaintiff states that the notice of termination having taken effect she is entitled to immediate vacant possession of the demised premises. The plaintiff therefore claims for vacant possession of the demised premises and the eviction of the defendant, his family members, agents and or servants from the demised premises. The plaintiff also claims for rent arrears in respect of the demised premises from the month of October, 2014 at the rate of Ksh. 8,000/= per month as stated until the time when the plaintiff obtains vacant possession of the said demised premises. The plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant for:
1. Immediate vacant possession of the dwelling premises situated at Amalemba Site and Service Scheme Phase 1, House No. 43 and the eviction of the defendant, his family members, agents and or servants from the said demised premises.
2. Immediate payment of the sum of Ksh. 8,000/= per month from the month of October, 2014 until when the plaintiff is given vacant possession of the demised premises.
3. Costs of this suit.
4. Interest on (b) and (c) above at court rates.
The defendant states that sometime in the year 2014 he entered into a tenancy arrangement with one Nicholas Nyongesa who was his landlord as regards the suit property at a monthly rent of Ksh. 8,000/= and by the end of the month of February, 2015 he had amicably vacated the said property. That by the time this suit was being filed in the month of March, 2015 he was no longer a tenant in occupation of the suit property.
This court has carefully considered the evidence and the submissions therein. PW1 testified that she is the proprietor and landlady in respect of the demised premises known as Amalemba site and Service Scheme Phase 1, House No. 43 whereas the defendant is the tenant in respect of the said premises. The plaintiff avers that the defendant has not been paying the agreed rent as and when it is due and is in arrears and has become a persistent defaulter. She produced demand notices to the defendant as exhibits. She confirms that the landlord is indicated as Nicholas Muhati who was the caretaker and that she is now in possession of the house. Payment was in cash and the defendant last paid in October 2014. DW1 the defendant testified that he paid rent in full and vacated the premises. He entered the tenancy agreement with one Nicholas and does not know the plaintiff. The said Nicholas never testified in court, no lease agreement was produced in court as well. I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case on a balance of probabilities. She is now in possession of the house and the issue of vacant possession can also not stand. I find this case is not merited and I dismiss it with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 8TH DECEMBER 2020.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE