[2008] KEHC 3871 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's apprehension of imminent eviction was real and that she had raised a prima facie case regarding her claim of being denied equal opportunity to purchase the flat. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant an injunction against the 1st respondent (National Housing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3871 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Paschazia Ngaiza Okinda; Respondent: National Housing Corporation; Respondent: The City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 2237 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Injunction granted against the 1st respondent; application against 2nd respondent dismissed; costs to applicant against 1st respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Tenant Rights, Eviction Proceedings, Sale of Public Housing
- 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
Paschazia Ngaiza Okinda
Applicant
National Housing Corporation
Respondent
The City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining eviction from the suit premises pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant was denied equal opportunity to purchase the flat as a sitting tenant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's apprehension of imminent eviction was real and that she had raised a prima facie case regarding her claim of being denied equal opportunity to purchase the flat. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant an injunction against the 1st respondent (National Housing Corporation) to restrain eviction until the main suit is determined. However, since there was no substantive response or evidence implicating the 2nd respondent (City Council of Nairobi), no injunction was issued against them. Costs were awarded to the applicant, payable by the 1st respondent.
Court Disposition
Injunction granted against the 1st respondent; application against 2nd respondent dismissed; costs to applicant against 1st respondent.
Orders
- An injunction is hereby issued restraining the 1st respondent from evicting the applicant from Flat No. MF36 door 'R', Madaraka Estate, pending determination of the main suit.
- No injunction is issued against the 2nd respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Election Petition 2237 of 2007
1. Land and Environmental Law Division
2. Subject of main suit. Sale of flats
i. LR flat No. MF36 “door R” Madaraka Estate.
ii. Offers made to tenants in occupation as priority.
iii. The tenant/Plaintiff denied equal opportunity to buy flat.
iv. Injunction to restrain defendants from evicting plaintiff/applicants.
3. Subject of main application 31. 10. 01
i. Injunction till determination of main suit.
4. In reply 1st respondent
i. Tenant not able to meet conditions of sale
5. In reply 2nd respondent - Nil
6. Held
i. Injunction against 1st respondent
ii. No injunction against 2nd respondent
7. Case Law - Nil
8. Advocate
T.V.M. Okwaro of Ouna were & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
K.N. Nyabare of K.N. Nyabare & Co. Advocates for the 2nd respondent - present
PASCHAZIA NGAIZA OKINDA……….....…PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION …………1ST DEFENDANT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI………..……. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
I. APPLICATION 31. 10. 07
INJUNCTION
1. This application of 31. 10. 07 seeks orders against the National Housing Corporation and the City Council of Nairobi to restrain them from evicting the plaintiff/applicant Paschazia Naiza Okinda from her occupation of Flat No. MF36 door “R” till the determination of the main suit.
2. In brief, the plaintiff/applicant is one of the occupants of 600 flats situated in the Madarka estate Nairobi owned by the two defendants. The defendants wished to sell the said properties to the tenants having first priority to buy. Conditions of sale was laid down. She was unable to put in her papers in time. Nonetheless she claimed that she was being discriminated against and was not given the same preference as were the others.
3. She prayed for an injunction to restrain the two defendants from evicting her out of the said premises/flats.
II: IN REPLY
4. The 1st respondent stated that the applicant was not able to meet the condition of sales. The 2nd respondent made no reply.
II. OPINION
5. The applicant/plaintiff is under the impression that she would be evicted from the suit premises at any time. She prays for this courts protection and to be given time to be heard.
6. The apprehension to be evicted and or not being given the same preference as other would be tenant purchaser is real. The said application for injunction be granted against the 1st defendant only till the determination of the main suit.
7. As to the 2nd respondent, there is not injunction to issue against them[1].
8. I award costs to the applicant to be paid by the 1st respondent.
DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2008 AT NAIROBI.
M. A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
T.V.M. Okwaro of Ouna were & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant – present
K.N. Nyabare of K.N. Nyabare & Co. Advocates for the 2nd respondent - present