[2020] KEHC 6317 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 6317 (KLR)

The court found that, in the absence of any response or rebuttal from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff's evidence and explanation regarding the rent payments and the confusion over the bank account details, it could not determine that the plaintiff was wilfully in default of the conditions for stay of execution....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 6317 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Karuga Njuguna; Defendant: Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited; Defendant: Peninah Njeri Hassan
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 506 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Eviction Post Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction disallowed; liberty to reapply in case of future default; no order as to costs.
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Stay of Execution, Compliance With Court Orders, Arrears of Rent
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Stay of Execution Compliance With Court Orders Arrears of Rent

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Karuga Njuguna

Plaintiff

Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited

Defendant

Peninah Njeri Hassan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Eviction Post Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was in wilful default of the conditions for stay of execution as ordered by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to an order for eviction of the plaintiff based on alleged rent arrears.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, in the absence of any response or rebuttal from the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff's evidence and explanation regarding the rent payments and the confusion over the bank account details, it could not determine that the plaintiff was wilfully in default of the conditions for stay of execution. The evidentiary burden to prove default was not discharged by the 2nd defendant. Consequently, the application for eviction was disallowed, but the 2nd defendant was granted liberty to seek eviction in the event of future default by the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction disallowed; liberty to reapply in case of future default; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2019 is disallowed.
  • Leave is granted to the 2nd defendant to file for eviction in case of future default of the condition of stay.