[1999] KEHC 118 (KLR)
The court found that while the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the property, he had not obtained the necessary approvals for the construction of the perimeter wall and house, as required by the Nairobi City Council regulations. The defendant's actions were based on a legally drawn plan that had not been revoked,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KEHC 118 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Hamisi Wabungo; Plaintiff: National Bank of Kenya Ltd.; Defendant: The Nairobi City Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1432 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Injunction granted; proceedings stayed pending outcome of earlier suit.
- Legal Topics
- Land Ownership Disputes, Building Approvals, Injunctions, Demolition of Structures
- 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
Michael Hamisi Wabungo
Plaintiff
National Bank of Kenya Ltd.
Plaintiff
The Nairobi City Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant was justified in demolishing the plaintiff's perimeter wall on the basis of lack of approved plans.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from further interference with the property.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to replacement of the damaged wall and general damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the plaintiff was the lawful owner of the property, he had not obtained the necessary approvals for the construction of the perimeter wall and house, as required by the Nairobi City Council regulations. The defendant's actions were based on a legally drawn plan that had not been revoked, and the plaintiff failed to prove the costs incurred for the demolished wall or entitlement to general damages. However, given the existence of a parallel suit against the Commissioner of Lands concerning the same property, the court determined that it was appropriate to grant an injunction and stay the current proceedings until the outcome of the earlier suit, to avoid...
Court Disposition
Injunction granted; proceedings stayed pending outcome of earlier suit.
Orders
- An injunction is granted to preserve the subject matter.
- These proceedings are stayed until the outcome of the earlier suit against the Commissioner of Lands.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1432 OF 1997
MICHAEL HAMISI WABUNGO ........................... PLAINTIFF NO.1
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LTD. ....................PLAINTIFF NO.2
VERSUS
THE NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL .................................. DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff No.1 is an employee of the Plaintiff No.2. He borrowed a sum of almost Kshs.9 million to purchase a piece of land known as Nairobi LR 91/92 and charged the same in favour of the plaintiff No.2. He later constructed a dwelling house on giving a further charge using the same property.
This was sometime in 1993.
In 1997 the Nairobi City Council and defendant in this case gave him a notice of demolition stating that he had erected unauthorised structures. One of these structures being a perimeter wall around the property.
The Nairobi City Council actually came and demolished portion of the wall on the expiry of the 48 hour notice. The plaintiff came to court and sort an injunction after filing this suit.
The plaintiff later learned that on his piece of land there was a subsequent plan that revealed that portion of it near the river was apportioned and a new piece of land marked “H” was created together with a road.
The original plan he said did not contain this plan nor was he ever consulted on the formation of the said road reserve.
The defendant admit the land all belong to the plaintiff but stated what they did was correct as the plaintiff was obstructing passage.
Further in order to build a wall there must be an approved plan. The plaintiff obtained no such plan.
The main plans for his house was also not within the council minutes as being approved.
It then transpired in the trial that the plaintiff had sued the Commissioner of Lands in another suit over the same property. The advocate for the plaintiff was unable to explain why the two suit were never consolidated save that there was a delay. He did inform the court the other case is coming in the month of March 1999.
Nonetheless it would have been prudent to consolidate the cases as the Nairobi City Council are operating on a legally drawn plan unless it is otherwise revoked which it has not been done.
I further find that the advocate for the plaintiff drew most of the instruments pertaining the said property. He ought not therefore to represent the plaintiff in the court that he may be called to given evidence.
The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction. There were two other prayers, one for the replacement of the damaged wall and another for General Damages.
None of this had been proved at the trial as to the costs incurred of the demolished wall.
I would nonetheless under my own motion grant an injunction, I would therefore stay these proceedings until the outcome of an earlier suit against the Commissioner of lands.
Dated this 11th day of March, 1999 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE