[2024] KEELC 6600 (KLR)
The court found that although granting a substantive relief such as eviction at the interlocutory stage is generally discouraged, the applicant demonstrated that she was at risk of irreparable harm due to the respondent's violent conduct. The respondent failed to file any response to the application. The court was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 6600 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hannah Wambui Ndiritu; Respondent: James Maina Gichuhi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E126 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed as drawn.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Trespass, Domestic Violence Protection
- 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
Hannah Wambui Ndiritu
Applicant
James Maina Gichuhi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interlocutory order of eviction against the respondent.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to restraining and prohibitory orders to prevent trespass and violence by the respondent.
- 3 Whether it is proper to grant substantive relief at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although granting a substantive relief such as eviction at the interlocutory stage is generally discouraged, the applicant demonstrated that she was at risk of irreparable harm due to the respondent's violent conduct. The respondent failed to file any response to the application. The court was persuaded by the applicant's submissions and authorities that the circumstances justified granting the orders sought to protect the applicant's safety and property. Accordingly, the application was allowed as drawn, granting the eviction, prohibitory, and restraining orders sought.
Court Disposition
Application allowed as drawn.
Orders
- The respondent is evicted from the applicant's property known as Runda Evergreen House No. 62 B.
- An order is issued prohibiting the respondent from trespassing on the applicant's property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Ndiritu v Gichuhi (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E126 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6600 (KLR) (9 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 6600 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E126 of 2024
LN Mbugua, J
October 9, 2024
Between
Hannah Wambui Ndiritu
Applicant
and
James Maina Gichuhi
Respondent
Ruling
1. Before me is the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion application dated 10. 7.2024 seeking the following orders:i.Thatthe Respondent be evicted from the Applicant’s property known as Runda Evergreen House No. 62. B.ii.Thatan order be issued prohibiting the Respondent from trespassing on the Applicant’s aforesaid property.iii.Thata restraining order be issued against the Respondent to prevent any form of contact or violence towards the Applicant.iv.Thatthe Officer Commanding Station (OCS) RundaPolice Station to ensure compliance with the above orders.v.Thatthis Honourable Court grant any other orders that it deems just and fit to grant.”
2. The applicant contends that she is a tenant in the house Runda Evergreen no. 62 B (the suit premises). That in August 2023, she allowed the respondent to stay in the suit premises, but he has become emotionally and physically violent, thereby affecting the health and well being of the applicant.
3. The application was swerved but no response was filed.
4. I have considered the arguments raised by the applicant including her submissions. The applicant is seeking an order of eviction against the respondent, which happens to be one of the reliefs sought in the plaint at prayer no 2. Ordinarily, it would not be proper to grant a major relief at the interlocutory stage. See Daniel Atibu Jasimba v Ainea Sandanyi Magana [2013] eKLR.
5. However, it appears that the applicant is no longer safe with therespondent around. To this end, I am in agreement with the submissions including the authorities proffered by the applicant that the said applicant may suffer irreparable harm if the orders sought are not granted.
6. Thus the application dated 10. 7.2024 is allowed as drawn.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Mwangi Kuria for the Plaintiffcourt Assistant: Joan