[2012] KEHC 1550 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute over whether the 1st defendant was prevented from collecting his goods or failed to do so voluntarily could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. Granting the benefit of doubt to the applicant, the court ordered that the 1st defendant should collect his personal goods and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 1550 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Gerrit Jaspers; Plaintiff: Chantal Heutink; Defendant: Dalmas Odhengo; Defendant: Omondi Okoyo; Defendant: Jasper Malome
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 220 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application allowed in part; 1st defendant to collect goods within 7 days; costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Disposal of Uncollected Goods, Storage Charges, Return of Property
- 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
Paul Gerrit Jaspers
Plaintiff
Chantal Heutink
Plaintiff
Dalmas Odhengo
Defendant
Omondi Okoyo
Defendant
Jasper Malome
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant should be compelled to collect his personal goods and items from the plaintiffs' premises.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to demand storage and auctioneers' charges before release of the items.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs can dispose of the defendant's goods under the Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute over whether the 1st defendant was prevented from collecting his goods or failed to do so voluntarily could not be resolved on affidavit evidence alone. Granting the benefit of doubt to the applicant, the court ordered that the 1st defendant should collect his personal goods and items within seven days. Any monetary claims by the plaintiffs for storage or related charges should be included in their ongoing claim before the court. The court declined to make a final determination on liability for storage or auctioneers' charges at this interlocutory stage, leaving those issues for trial.
Court Disposition
Application allowed in part; 1st defendant to collect goods within 7 days; costs in the cause.
Orders
- The 1st defendant shall collect his personal goods and items from the plaintiffs' premises within seven (7) days from the date of this ruling.
- The plaintiffs may include any monetary claims for storage or auctioneers' charges in their ongoing claim before the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Kisumu
Civil Case 220 of 2011 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
PAUL GERRIT JASPERS…………………......................................……………………1st PLAINTIFF
CHANTAL HEUTINK……………………….....................................…………………….2nd PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DALMAS ODHENGO………………………..................................……………………1ST DEFENDANT
OMONDI OKOYO…………………………………...................................……………2nd DEFENDANT
JASPER MALOME ………………………………..….....................................………..3rd DEFENDANT
RULING
Vide his Notice of Motion dated 29th June 2012 the 1st defendant prays that this court do compel the plaintiff to release to him several assorted items which are his and what were left behind when this court issued the temporary orders in the plaintiffs' favour. When the above application came up for hearing Mr. Okoth for the applicant abandoned the other prayers except number 3.
The affidavit in support of the application sworn by the 1st defendant on 29th June 2012 avers that the plaintiff has advertised for sale his properties and unless stopped he stands to suffer loss and damage. He further argues that his efforts to have him collect the items have always been thwarted by the order issued against him and in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has respondent vide the replying affidavit dated 12th July 2012. The 2nd respondent avers that as a result of the 1st defendant failure to collect his items they have incurred a lot of costs in keeping them hence the decision to dispose the same under the provisions of the Disposal of uncollected Goods Act.
I have perused the application as well as the reply. There is no doubt that the relationship between the parties herein has irretrievably broken down. The orders of injunction did not include ordering the applicant to collect his items. There was an admission by the plaintiff however that the applicant should collect his goods so that space could be created for the plaintiff to undertake their work.
The plaintiffs contents that before the 1st defendant is allowed to collect the items he should first of all pay the storage charges as well as the auctioneers charges. The 1st defendant however contents that he did not refuse to collect save that the plaintiffs used the order in their favour to stop him from collecting the items.
Taking the totality of the evidence before me it is difficult at this juncture to determine who is telling the truth. It is only through adduction of oral evdence that the issue can be resolved.
I shall consequently, grant the applicant the benefit of doubt and order that he should proceed within the next seven (7) days from the date herein to collect his personal goods and items. The plaintiffs on the other hand should they have any expenditure or monetary claim or costs that they may have incurred against the defendant should proceed to include it in their claim which is already in court. The costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 29th day of October 2012
H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE
In the presence of:
Onsongo for Oluoch for the applicant
Mwamu for the respondent
HKC/aao