[2012] KEHC 2936 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient proprietary interest in the suit premises at the interlocutory stage, supported by documentary evidence that was not disputed by the respondent. The respondent failed to address the issue of ownership and instead focused on alleged breaches of tenancy...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2936 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Phoebe Wangui Gakui; Respondent: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 125 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
- Outcome
- interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicant; costs in the cause
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Proprietary Interest, Ownership Dispute, Landlord Tenant Relationship
- 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
Phoebe Wangui Gakui
Applicant
City Council of Nairobi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the suit property.
- 2 Whether the applicant is the lawful owner of House No. 187 on L.R No. 209/13539/210 and not a tenant of the respondent.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient proprietary interest in the suit premises at the interlocutory stage, supported by documentary evidence that was not disputed by the respondent. The respondent failed to address the issue of ownership and instead focused on alleged breaches of tenancy and nuisance, which were not substantiated in relation to the applicant's status. The court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case with a probability of success, was likely to suffer irreparable loss if evicted, and that the balance of convenience favoured her. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the...
Court Disposition
interlocutory injunction granted in favour of the applicant; costs in the cause
Orders
- An order of injunction restraining the defendant, whether by itself, its agents, employees, servants or any other person claiming under it, from demolishing, evicting and/or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's quiet enjoyment of user and possession of her dwelling house No. 187 on L.R No. 209/13539/210 or...
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA ATNAIROBI
ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND CASE 125 OF 2012
PHOEBE WANGUI GAKUI....................................................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI...........................................................................DEFENDNT/RESPODNENT
RULING
The Plaintiff/Applicant (Applicant) in a notice of motion dated 12/3/2012, seeking orders that:
i.The Honourable Court be pleased to grant an order restraining the defendant, whether by itself, its agents, employees, servants or any other person claiming under it form demolishing, evicting and/or on any manner interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of user and possession of her dwelling house No. 187 on that parcel of land known as L.R No. 209/13539/210 or in any manner from harassing the plaintiff, her agents or workers on said parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
ii.That the costs of this application be in the cause.
iii.That all necessary directions and/or any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit be given.
The application is premised on grounds that the Applicant is the registered owner of the suit property, being an innocent purchaser for value without notice and therefore has sufficient proprietary interest therein.
The application is supported by a Supporting Affidavit sworn by the applicant on 12/3/2012. The applicant depones that she purchased the suit property from the Defendant. That she was issued with a notice to vacate the suit property yet she is not a tenant, thereby threatening her peaceful and quiet enjoyment of user of the suit property. She contends that she has never been a tenant of the defendant, and that there is no landlord – tenant relationship as purported by the defendant and that the conditions of the tenancy are unknown to her.
The Defendant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by J. N. Kariuki dated 11/4/2012. The deponent stated that he is the Director of Social Services and Housing Department of the City Council of Nairobi, and therefore competent to swear the affidavit. The deponent admits that the Applicant was issued with a notice to vacate the suit premises as she was in contravention of the clause No. 4, 5, and 10 of the conditions of the tenancy agreement. She depones that there was an attempt to sell the houses at Joseph Kag’ethe estate by the Defendant, but that the sale was nullified as the Defendant had not alienated the land. That some of the tenants who purported to purchase the said houses have gone to court to challenge the nullification of the sale, and that the cases are pending in court.
The issue before me, according to the Applicant is ownership of House No. 187 on the piece of land known as L.R No. 209/13539/210 off Suna Road. She contends that she is not a tenant and that there is no landlord – tenant relationship between herself and the Defendant. She has exhibited the notice that was served upon her which is titled Notice to Quit and ordering her to vacate the house by 13/3/2012. The applicant has also exhibited in her affidavit a Letter of allotment, evidence of payment, and Letter authorizing the Director of Finance/Chief Revenue Officer to accept payment from the Applicant. The Respondent has not disputed the existence of these documents. In its affidavit, it has not addressed the issue of ownership of the suit property, but has brought about the issue of unblocking of a sewer line that passes through the suit premises. The Defendant’s Affidavit is squarely on the issue of nuisance caused by a sewer line in the Applicant’s premises. If that is the case, the Defendant should file appropriate proceedings against the Applicant or serve the requisite notices upon her.
At this stage I find that the Applicant has exhibited that she has proprietary interest in the suit premises which is sufficient at the interlocutory stage. I find that she has a prima facie case with a probability of success. The Applicant is likely to suffer irreparable loss in the event that she is evicted from the suit premises. The balance of convenience tilts in her favour.
I therefore an order of injunction restraining the defendant, whether by itself, its agents, employees, servants or any other person claiming under it form demolishing, evicting and/or on any manner interfering with the plaintiffs quiet enjoyment of user and possession of her dwelling house No. 187 on that parcel of land known as L.R No. 209/13539/210 or in any manner from harassing the plaintiff, her agents or workers on said parcel of land pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
Cost shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered this 20thday of July2012
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
……………………………………For the Plaintiffs
…………………………………… For the Defendants
Kabiru Court Clerk