Margaret Wamaitha Njoroge(suing as the Legal Representative of the estate of Stephen Njoroge Githu (Deceased) v Charles Mwandawiro & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2804 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya

21 June 2018

MGMary M. Gitumbi BEBernard Eboso

1,360 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

The High Court dismissed an eviction and injunction application because the property was described too vaguely for the court to know what it was.

What this practically means

Executive summary

The Plaintiff, Margaret Wamaitha Njoroge, widow and legal administrator of the estate of Njoroge Githu, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 23rd May 2011 seeking an order compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to vacate Shop No. 8 at Riruta Satelite, and a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the suit premises pending the hearing of the suit. She averred that the deceased was a tenant of the 4th Defendant and that she had granted her grandson, the 3rd Defendant, only limited rights to pay rent, but he fraudulently leased the premises to the 1st Defendant for ten years from 1st October 2009, and the 1st Defendant allowed the 2nd Defendant to run a butchery there. The 2nd Defendant, Milcah Wanjiru, countered that she and her fiancé, the 1st Defendant, leased the premises from the 3rd Defendant in good faith, paying goodwill of Kshs. 200,000/- and rent, and that upon learning the true owner she was allocated the premises by the 4th Defendant and issued a Housing Estates Rent Card. The 4th Defendant, through its Director of Social Services & Housing, J.N. Kariuki, deponed that the Plaintiff had sub-let the premises without consent and defaulted on rent, leading to its allocation to the 2nd Defendant as a new tenant. The court did not reach the merits: it found the description of the suit premises, Shop No. 8 Riruta Satelite, vague and without a land reference number, such that the premises were unknown to the court and no orders could issue in respect of land not properly identified. The application was dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

Whether the court could determine the application for eviction and temporary injunction

Holding

The application was dismissed because the suit premises, described only as Shop No. 8 Riruta Satelite, was vague and could not be identified; the court declined to reach the merits

Reasoning

The court observed that the description of the suit premises as Shop No. 8 Riruta Satelite lacked a land reference number and was vague and unclear, rendering the premises unknown to the court. Since a court cannot issue orders over property that is not properly identified and described, it found itself unable to consider the merits of the eviction and injunction prayers and dismissed the motion with costs to the Defendants.

p. 2

Legal principles established

A court cannot issue orders, including eviction or injunction orders, in respect of a parcel of land that is not properly identified and described

Court orders

1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd May 2011 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants

Jurisdiction invoked: Original civil jurisdiction (interlocutory application in a pending suit)

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Margaret Wamaitha Njoroge(suing as the Legal Representative of the estate of Stephen Njoroge Githu (Deceased) v Charles Mwandawiro & 3 others [2018] KEELC 2804 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 23rd May 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2804/eng@2018-06-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.