[2017] KEHC 8374 (KLR)
The court found that the application was fundamentally defective as it sought orders against individuals and offices who were not parties to the suit, contrary to established civil procedure. Furthermore, the principal prayer for production of documents was vague, lacking clarity as to the specific statements or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8374 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Nancy Wanjeri; Defendant: Michael Mungai; Respondent: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited; Respondent: Kenya Building Society Limited; Respondent: Taifa Auctioneers; Respondent: Christopher Afisa; Interested Parties: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3 & 17 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Eviction Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Joinder of Parties, Eviction Orders, Vagueness of Pleadings
- 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
Nancy Wanjeri
Petitioner
Michael Mungai
Defendant
Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited
Respondent
Kenya Building Society Limited
Respondent
Taifa Auctioneers
Respondent
Christopher Afisa
Respondent
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & Others
Interested Parties
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Eviction Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application properly seeks orders against non-parties to the suit.
- 2 Whether the principal prayer for production of documents is sufficiently clear and supported by evidence.
- 3 Whether the orders sought for eviction and confirmation of costs assessment are available on the facts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was fundamentally defective as it sought orders against individuals and offices who were not parties to the suit, contrary to established civil procedure. Furthermore, the principal prayer for production of documents was vague, lacking clarity as to the specific statements or documents sought, and was unsupported by the necessary evidence, as the referenced notice to the Attorney-General was not exhibited. The court concluded that no sufficient basis had been laid for the grant of any of the orders sought, and accordingly dismissed the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 5th July 2016 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
- The judge recuses himself from further handling the matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
CIVIL CASES NOS. 3 AND 17 OF 2001
NANCY WANJERI……………………………...………………….…………PETITIONER
VERSUS
MICHAEL MUNGAI………………………………………………….…………DEFENDANT
AND
HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY OF KENYA LIMITED..................…....1ST RESPONDENT
KENYA BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED…………..…...........………….2ND RESPONDENT
TAIFA AUCTIONEERS……………………………………...……..……3RD RESPONDENT
CHRISTOPHER AFISA……………………………………..………..…4TH RESPONDENT
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD & OTHERS.................……...INTERESTED PARTIES
OTHERS……………………………………………...…ACCESSORIES TO THE CRIMES
RULING
1. The application for determination is the Motion dated 5th July 2016. It is brought at the instance of Michael Mungai, the defendant. It seeks in the main that the respondents, jointly with the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Registrar of the High Court, the Chief Land Registrar and other persons not named, do produce to the court their statements with the thirty (30) documents that are listed in the ‘Notice to sue the Ag dated 27th October 2014 and any other documents relevant to Nairobi Block 111/530.
2. There are supplementary prayers directed at the officers commanding the Kayole Police Station and Division, the Chief of Komarock Location, and the Deputy Registrar. The orders directed at the security officers are to command them to remove the respondents and any one claiming through them from the suit land. The Deputy Registrar is to be ordered to confirm in writing that she had assessed the defendant’s bill of costs and that the defendant had applied for a certificate of stated costs.
3. I have read through the grounds set out on the face of the application, as well as the affidavit sworn in support, together with the documents attached to it as annextures. In my view, none of them lay a basis for grant of the orders that are sought against parties – such as the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Inspector General of Police, the Director of Criminal Investigations, the Registrar of the High Court and the Chief Land Registrar – who have not even been made parties to the suit.
4. Even if I were to find that the application was properly before me, I would still find it difficult to grant the orders sought for the principal prayer is vague, for it is not clear about the statements that the applicant would like produced nor the thirty (30) documents mentioned therein. I have gone through the annextures and noted that the notice to the Attorney-General dated 27th October 2014 has not even been exhibited in the affidavit.
5. I am not satisfied that the orders sought are available for granting and I do hereby dismiss the application dated 5th July 2016 with no orders as to costs.
6. I have had to deal with several applications on the matter. For personal reasons I do not wish to continue handling this matter. I hereby recuse myself from it.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE