[2011] KEHC 193 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs are tenants in occupation of the defendant's premises and are under threat of eviction. The defendant, despite being served, failed to file any response or appear to oppose the application. In the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the court held that it is proper to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 193 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rumba Kinuthia (T/A Rumba Kinuthia & Co. Advocates); Plaintiff: Joseph Karanja Wamugi (T/A Barlany Services & Bonus Travel); Plaintiff: Joseph Oloo Kenyagah (T/A Millenium Insurance Brokers); Defendant: City Council of Nairobi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 266 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- Application for temporary injunction allowed.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Landlord Tenant Disputes, Eviction, Interlocutory 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
Rumba Kinuthia (T/A Rumba Kinuthia & Co. Advocates)
Plaintiff
Joseph Karanja Wamugi (T/A Barlany Services & Bonus Travel)
Plaintiff
Joseph Oloo Kenyagah (T/A Millenium Insurance Brokers)
Plaintiff
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting them or interfering with their occupation of the offices pending determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs are tenants in occupation of the defendant's premises and are under threat of eviction. The defendant, despite being served, failed to file any response or appear to oppose the application. In the circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the court held that it is proper to maintain the status quo by granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation of their respective offices pending the determination of the suit. The injunctive relief is subject to the undertakings as to damages already filed by the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Application for temporary injunction allowed.
Orders
- Temporary injunction granted restraining the defendant from evicting or interfering with the plaintiffs' occupation of their respective offices in City Hall Annexe pending disposal of the suit.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 266 OF 2011
1. RUMBA KINUTHIA(T/A RUMBA KINUTHIA & CO. ADVOCATES)
2. JOSEPH KARANJA WAMUGI(T/A BARLANY SERVICES & BONUS TRAVEL)
3. JOSEPH OLOO KENYAGAH(T/A MILLENIUM INSURANCE BROKERS)
(suing on their behalf and on behalf of 15 Others).………….……...PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI…………….………..…...............……DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Plaintiffs’ application by notice of motion dated 14th July 2011 seeks temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiffs or interfering with their occupation of their respective offices in the Defendant’s office building called City Hall Annexe situated within Nairobi pending hearing and determination of the suit. The suit is for similar but permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that they are all periodic tenants of the Defendant occupying various offices.
The application was filed under certificate of urgency. The court certified it urgent on 15th July 2011 and directed that the Defendant be served for hearing inter partes on 26th July 2011. The Defendant was served on 20th July 2011.
On 26th July 2011 there was no appearance for the Defendant. The court granted interim temporary injunction but directed that the application be heard inter partes on 11th October 2011.
On 11th October 2011 there was appearance for the Defendant. Adjournment was sought on its behalf but refused on account of the Defendant not having filed any papers in response to the application despite service of the application on 20th July 2011, nearly three months before. I therefore permitted the application to be presented.
As already stated, the application is unopposed in that no papers have been filed in response. The Plaintiffs are tenants in occupation who are under threat of eviction. The Defendant has already filed defence thus joining issue with the Plaintiffs upon their respective claims. It is therefore only just that the status quo be maintained pending disposal of the suit.
I will in the event allow the application by notice of motion dated 14th July 2011. Temporary injunction is granted pending disposal of the suit. The injunctive relief is granted against the undertakings as to damages already filed by the Plaintiffs.
Costs of the application shall be in the cause. It is so ordered.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011.