[2016] KEHC 7904 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 7904 (KLR)

The court exercised its discretion to partially grant the application, allowing the applicant an extension of 45 days to vacate the premises. The court found that while some extension was justified to allow the applicant to make arrangements, an indefinite or lengthy extension would prejudice the 1st defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 7904 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Maurice Aldous Opar; Defendant: Trinity Prime Investments Limited; Defendant: Erick Ananda; Defendant: Josephine Mongare T/A J.W Wambua & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Joseph Ngerogenge Njoroge T/A Janen Maroa Agencies
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1492 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application Dated 14th March 2016
Outcome
Application partially allowed; extension of time to vacate granted for 45 days only.
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Possession Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Eviction Proceedings Possession Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maurice Aldous Opar

Plaintiff

Trinity Prime Investments Limited

Defendant

Erick Ananda

Defendant

Josephine Mongare T/A J.W Wambua & Co. Advocates

Defendant

Joseph Ngerogenge Njoroge T/A Janen Maroa Agencies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application Dated 14th March 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an extension of time to vacate the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to evict the plaintiff if the applicant fails to vacate within the extended period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to partially grant the application, allowing the applicant an extension of 45 days to vacate the premises. The court found that while some extension was justified to allow the applicant to make arrangements, an indefinite or lengthy extension would prejudice the 1st defendant's rights. The court therefore limited the extension to 45 days, after which the 1st defendant would be at liberty to evict the plaintiff if the applicant had not vacated. This decision balanced the need for fairness to the applicant with the property rights of the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Application partially allowed; extension of time to vacate granted for 45 days only.

Orders

  • Prayer 4 of the application is granted.
  • Prayer 3 is granted to the extent that the period to vacate is extended by 45 days from the date of the ruling.