[2022] KEELC 14816 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already been evicted from the suit premises, as confirmed by the respondents' affidavit and not controverted by any further affidavit from the applicant. Since the applicant was no longer a tenant and the eviction had already occurred, the application for stay of execution was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 14816 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Fred Osiewo; Respondent: Paul Kipyego Maru; Respondent: George Saina t/a Brighton Villas Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Rent Arrears, Stay of Execution, Eviction Proceedings
- 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
Fred Osiewo
Applicant
Paul Kipyego Maru
Respondent
George Saina t/a Brighton Villas Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted after the applicant has already been evicted from the suit premises.
- 2 Whether the application for stay has been overtaken by events.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had already been evicted from the suit premises, as confirmed by the respondents' affidavit and not controverted by any further affidavit from the applicant. Since the applicant was no longer a tenant and the eviction had already occurred, the application for stay of execution was rendered moot. Granting a stay would serve no practical purpose and would amount to the court acting in vain. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents as it had been overtaken by events.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The applicant's application for stay is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Osiewo v Maru & another (Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 14816 (KLR) (17 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 14816 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Environment and Land Appeal E015 of 2022
EO Obaga, J
October 17, 2022
Between
Fred Osiewo
Applicant
and
Paul Kipyego Maru
1st Respondent
George Saina t/a Brighton Villas Limited
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. This is a ruling in respect of Notice of Motion dated May 5, 2022, in which the Appellant/Applicant sought the following orders: -1. Spent2. Spent3. That there be a stay of the order of the Rent Restriction Tribunal made on the April 8, 2022 in Eldoret RRTC No. E031 of 2022 –Paul Kipyego Maru & George Saina T/A Brighton Villas Limited pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.4. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The applicant was a tenant of the respondents where he was paying monthly rent of Kshs 15,000/=. As at March 2022, the Applicant was in arrears of rent of Kshs 305,000/=. The Respondents filed a suit against him at the Rent Restriction Tribunal at Eldoret seeking recovery of the arrears and for leave to levy distress for rent.
3. The respondents contemporaneously filed a notice of motion in which they sought similar order as in the plaint. The applicant filed a replying affidavit to the respondent’s’ application but neither he nor his counsel appeared during the hearing of the application. The application proceeded ex-parte. The Applicant’s application for stay for execution was declined by the Rent Restriction Tribunal.
4. The applicant then preferred an appeal against the ruling of the Rent Restriction Tribunal as well as the current notice of motion. The appellate court did not grant orders of stay ex-parte preferring the application to be heard inter-parties. In response to the applicant’s application for stay, the Respondents stated in an affidavit that the application had been overtaken by events in that the applicant had been evicted and was no longer a tenant of the Respondent.
5. The Applicant had been given leave to file a further affidavit but on June 27, 2022, the applicant’s counsel informed the court that they did not wish to file a further affidavit. This being the case, the replying affidavit as well as the grounds of opposition by the Respondents remain uncontroverted. Courts do not give orders in vain. If the Applicant has been evicted from the suit premises, there is no need for the court granting stay orders as that would be acting in vain. The upshot of this is that the applicant’s application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent as the same has been overtaken by events.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET ON THIS 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022. E. O. OBAGAJUDGEIn the virtual presence of;Mr. Ombego for Respondent.Mr. Mathai for Mr. Kigamwa for Applicant.Court Assistant –AlbertE. O. OBAGAJUDGE17THNOVEMBER, 2022