[2020] KECA 127 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's entitlement to staff housing was conditional upon her employment, which had been terminated in 2014. The applicant failed to demonstrate that her intended appeal was arguable, as she admitted her employment had ended and thus her right to occupy the staff house had...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KECA 127 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stella Wambui Muhoro; Respondent: Kenya Meat Commission
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 175 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MA Warsame, F Sichale, S ole Kantai
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Relief, Staff Housing Rights, Redundancy and Termination, Possession of Premises
- 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
Stella Wambui Muhoro
Applicant
Kenya Meat Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining eviction from staff housing pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's entitlement to staff housing was conditional upon her employment, which had been terminated in 2014. The applicant failed to demonstrate that her intended appeal was arguable, as she admitted her employment had ended and thus her right to occupy the staff house had ceased. Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction was not granted, since the applicant continued to occupy the premises despite the termination. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: WARSAME, SICHALE & KANTAI JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 175 OF 2020
BETWEEN
STELLA WAMBUI MUHORO.......................................................APPLICANT
AND
KENYA MEAT COMMISSION..................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an Application for injunction from the Judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Justice Maureen Onyango) dated 12thJune, 2020
in
ELRC. No. 3 of 2019)
*******************
RULING OF THE COURT
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 26th June,2020 the applicant, Stella Wambui Muhorohas invoked our jurisdiction underRule 5(2) (b)of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondent, Kenya Meat Commission,its servants and agents or any other person acting under its authority from victimizing, selling, threatening, evicting,selling, transferring or in any way interfering with the applicant’spossession and enjoyment ofstaff house number 32, Kunde Roadlocated in Lavington Nairobi County(the suit premises)following a judgment delivered by the trial court on 12th June 2020 wherein the Court held that the applicant’s right to housing ceased with termination of her employment, dismissed the applicant’s claim against the respondent andordered her to vacate the suit premises and pay all outstanding rent from the date of termination.
2. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed the instant application before us. The grounds on the face of the application and reiterated in the Supporting Affidavit of the applicant dated 6th June, 2020 are that: the applicant was declared redundant by the respondent on 12th October, 2014 and an eviction notice issued despite having paid excess rent; that the applicant is apprehensive that the respondent will evict her from the suit premises putting her family in great jeopardy during the Covid pandemic lockdown; that the subject of the application will be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted and that the intended appeal is arguable with high chances of success.
3. We have considered the application and the law. The twin principles that an applicant must satisfy in a rule 5(2)(b) application are well known. The applicant must show that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable; and that the appeal, if successful, shall be rendered nugatory unless the orders sought are granted; see Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Keter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR.
4. Taking into account the parameters of our discretion in the application before us as well as being careful not to make final determination on the merit of the intended appeal, we are not convinced that the intended appeal is arguable given that the applicant’s entitlement to staff housingwas subject to her employment which according to the applicant’s admission, terminated on 12th October 2014.
5. What’s more, we are not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory unless the orders sought are granted. We say so because despite being terminated in 2014, it appears that the applicant still continues to be a tenant on the suit premises.
6. The upshot of the foregoing is that the application lacks merit and ishereby dismissed with costs.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 4thday of December, 2020.
M. WARSAME
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
F. SICHALE
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.ole KANTAI
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a truecopy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRA