[2014] KEHC 1400 (KLR)
The court found that there was a binding consent order allowing the petitioner to remain in occupation of the premises pending the determination of the suit. No sufficient basis had been established to interfere with this order. However, the court recognized the need to maintain peace at the premises and therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 1400 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: R A W; Respondent: R T
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 211 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Application partially allowed; existing occupation order maintained with additional restraints imposed.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Interlocutory Injunctions, Occupation Orders
- 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
R A W
Petitioner
R T
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner should be directed to vacate the matrimonial premises and be provided with alternative accommodation pending determination of the petition.
- 2 Whether the petitioner should be restrained from threatening, abusing, or intimidating tenants and employees at the premises.
- 3 Whether the existing consent order restraining eviction should be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was a binding consent order allowing the petitioner to remain in occupation of the premises pending the determination of the suit. No sufficient basis had been established to interfere with this order. However, the court recognized the need to maintain peace at the premises and therefore restrained the petitioner from threatening, abusing, or intimidating tenants and employees. The court further provided that any violation of this restraint would entitle the applicant to seek the petitioner's relocation to alternative accommodation. The Officer Commanding Station was directed to enforce the peace. No order as to costs was made.
Court Disposition
Application partially allowed; existing occupation order maintained with additional restraints imposed.
Orders
- The petitioner shall remain in occupation of the subject premises as previously ordered.
- The petitioner is restrained from threatening, abusing, or intimidating tenants and employees or causing trouble at the premises during the pendency of the petition.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 211 OF 2013
BETWEEN
R A W……............…….....…..PETITIONER
AND
R T………………..……..…RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Motion dated 17th January 2014 seeks that the petitioner be directed to vacate the three bedroomed apartment and servants quarters belonging to the [particulars withheld] Company Limited in Upper Hill to an equivalent alternative accommodation to be paid by the respondent pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein. There is also a prayer that she be restrained from entering, accessing, dealing or interfering with the said applicant and from threatening abusing and intimidating employees at the said premises. The applicant prays that the OCS Upper Hill Police Station do effect the order and ensure peace prevails.
2. The applicant, who is the respondent in the petition, avers that the parties are separated, and that he had obtained accommodation for the respondent at the premises in question. He complains that she has become a nuisance at the premises, and details her alleged misconduct. He evinces his willingness to get her alternative accommodation.
3. The petitioner responded to the application vide her replying affidavit sworn on 20th March 2014. She denies the allegations made by the applicant in his affidavit. She states that there are orders in place made on 31st October 2013 restraining her eviction from the said premises.
4. The application was prosecuted orally on 27th March 2014 by Mr. Laichena for the applicant and Ms. Adeitan for the respondent.
5. I note that there was a consent order recorded on 31st October 2013 to the effect that the applicant shall remain on the said premises pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Sufficient basis has not been laid in my view to warrant interference with the said consent order.
6. It would appear that the petitioner might have been causing trouble at the premises. Although she enjoys protection orders against eviction, she should respect the applicant, the other tenants on the premises and employees taking care of the premises. She should desist from any acts which disturb the peace.
7. It is imperative that the parties hereto avoid making multiple applications. They should fix the petition for directions and thereafter proceed to have it disposed of once and for all.
8. I make the following orders:
(a) That the petitioner shall remain in occupation of the subject premises in LR No. [Particulars withheld] Upper Hill as ordered on 31st October 2013;
(b) That the petitioner is hereby restrained while in occupation of LR NO. [Particulars withheld] as aforesaid from threatening, abusing or intimidating tenants and employees at the said premises or causing trouble of any nature whatsoever at the said premises during the pendency of the petition;
(c) That in the event of any one incident which violates the order in (b) above, the applicant shall be at liberty to move the respondent to alternative accommodation elsewhere;
(d) That the Officer Commanding the Upper Hill Police Station shall give effect to the order in (b) above to ensure that peace prevail;
(e) That there shall be no order as costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 28th DAY OF November, 2014.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Laichena advocate for the respondent.