[2004] KEHC 2088 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff's claim for an injunction is a remedy that only the High Court can grant and not the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the suit is properly before the High Court. The second ground of objection, relating to alleged non-disclosure of material facts, was based on facts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 2088 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick B. Makari; Defendant: Mrs. Doris Oluoch Abiero
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 619 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Injunctions
- 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
Patrick B. Makari
Plaintiff
Mrs. Doris Oluoch Abiero
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit or if it should have been filed before the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff should be denied audience for allegedly failing to disclose all material facts when obtaining interlocutory orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff's claim for an injunction is a remedy that only the High Court can grant and not the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the suit is properly before the High Court. The second ground of objection, relating to alleged non-disclosure of material facts, was based on facts rather than law and thus did not constitute a valid preliminary objection. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The Preliminary Objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO 619 OF 2004
PATRICK B. MAKARI ……………...…………...………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS MRS. DORIS OLUOCH ABIERO ……………...……….. DEFENDANT
RULING
At the commencement of the hearing of this Chamber Summons application dated June 11, 2004, Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent raised a Preliminary Objection, in accordance with the Notice of Preliminary Objection, dated and filed June 23, 2004.
The following are the two objections raised:
1. THAT Civil Suit No 619 of 2004 is not properly before this Honourable Court.
2. THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant should not be heard further in this matter because they did not bring to the notice of the court all mater ial facts when they applied for and obtained interlocutory orders on June 11, 2004.
Counsel argued that this suit should have been filed in the Business Premises Rent Tribunal (BPRT) and not in the High Court; that this court can only exercise appellate jurisdiction once all the remedies are exhausted at Business Premises Rent Tribunal; that the Plaintiff alleges that his tenancy is “controlled” within the meaning of the law, and hence his remedy lies with the BPRT; and finally that the suit is an abuse of the legal process.
Having perused through the pleadings and the application before this Court, I find that the Plaintiff’s claim before the High Court is for an injunction, a remedy that only the High Court can grant, and one that he cannot seek before the BPRT. Accordingly, this suit is properly before this Court.
With regard to the second ground of objection, the same is based on “facts” as opposed to “law” and does not constitute a ground for Preliminary Objection.
I, therefore, dismiss the Preliminary Objection with costs to the Plaintiff.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 13th day of July, 2004.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE