[2001] KEHC 377 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs, as licensees and kiosk owners, had only a temporary right of occupation and that their interest was not sufficient to override the public interest in developing a Bus Park. The court held that any injury to the plaintiffs could be compensated in money and that the balance of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 377 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Walter Miller Owuor; Plaintiff: Liston Kenga Kadenge; Plaintiff: Mwamgua Mwalumbi; Defendant: Kilifi County Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 480 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Discharge/vary Injunction
- Outcome
- injunction varied; plaintiffs to vacate premises for public development; alternative grounds to be allocated
- Judges
- AI Hayanga
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Proprietary Rights of Licensees, Eviction and Vacant Possession, Public Interest Development
- 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
Walter Miller Owuor
Plaintiff
Liston Kenga Kadenge
Plaintiff
Mwamgua Mwalumbi
Plaintiff
Kilifi County Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Discharge/vary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interim injunction restraining the defendant from developing the suit premises should be discharged or varied.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs, as licensees, have a proprietary interest sufficient to prevent eviction for public development.
- 3 Whether the balance of convenience and public interest outweighs the plaintiffs' occupation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs, as licensees and kiosk owners, had only a temporary right of occupation and that their interest was not sufficient to override the public interest in developing a Bus Park. The court held that any injury to the plaintiffs could be compensated in money and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, who had already engaged a contractor and faced potential financial penalties. The court exercised its discretion to vary the injunction, directing that the plaintiffs vacate the premises in an orderly manner and be allocated alternative grounds for their kiosks, thus allowing the public development to proceed while mitigating hardship to the...
Court Disposition
injunction varied; plaintiffs to vacate premises for public development; alternative grounds to be allocated
Orders
- The interim injunction restraining the defendant from developing the suit premises is varied.
- Plaintiffs are to vacate the premises for the stated public development of a Bus Park.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 480 OF 2000
1. WALTER MILLER OWUOR
2. LISTON KENGA KADENGE
3. MWAMGUA MWALUMBI …………………………. PLAINTIFFS
- Versus -
KILIFI COUNTY COUNCIL …………………………….. DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is a Chamber Summon application dated 28. 8.2001 made under Order 39 rr 4 & 7 of Civil Procedure Act and of the Civil Procedure Rules asking for orders given herein earlier to restrain the defendant from developing suit premises be discharged and or varied that the Defendants be allowed to proceed with construction of a Bus Park in Kilifi. It is stated that the Plaintiffs are mere licencees and have no interest and have no lawful claim and also that the Defendants will meet penalties for non-performance as they had hired a third party to construct the premises. The application is supported by the affidavit of EDWARD KINGI KAHINDI SWORN ON 28. 6.2001 BUT IT IS OPPOSED BY Mr. Marende for the Respondents/Plaintiffs opposed the application who relied on the original affidavit and claimed that the kiosks had been pulled down and that the Town Clerk of Kilifi is in contempt. The original affidavit of W.M. however claimed that the parties have always carried on business there for over 14 years and that they should not be recovered.
The principle guiding a court in dissolving, varying or discharging existing injunction order which had been ex-parte is based on discretion but not as Mr. Chitembwe impliedly submitted that they were mere licensees because even a licence is a proprietory right. In my view where the interim injunction was obtained by suppression of facts or where it turns out that injunction was obtained in reliance in a decision which was wrong in that then ex-parte injunction can be discharged or on any other cogent reason or where the order has become harsh, unmarkable. Mr. Chitembwe has said that the Council is going to pay a lot of money to contractor already engaged. I think the expense will exculpate. Secondly Plaintiffs are licensees, kiosk owners. Their expectation must have been a temporary occupation … The Council wants the area for a public park. I think the injury to the plaintiff’s legal right is …. And one which can be estimated in money and in contradiction one which is over weighed by a public developer like a Bus Park.
In this situation it would be just that plaintiff be given alternative grounds for their kiosks but they vacate the premises for the stated development.
I direct that this be done through the Town Clerk Kilifi in an orderly way. There be liberty to apply cost in the cause.
Order varied to that extent.
Read this 21st day of September, 2001.
A.I. Hayanga
JUDGE
21/9/2001