Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion application dated 11.11.2021 (appeal from Milimani Magistrates Court ELC Case No. E237 of 2021)· [2022] KEELC 1285 (KLR)

Maworks Investments Company Limited v Meru Central Coffee Cooperative Union [2022] KEELC 1285 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 February 2022
1,423 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court halted eviction orders, ruling that a landlord cannot escape existing tribunal orders by filing a fresh case over the same dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a notice of motion dated 11.11.2021 in which the Appellant sought a stay of execution of, and further proceedings pursuant to, the ruling and orders of the Magistrates Court in Milimani ELC Case No. E237 of 2021 delivered on 22nd October 2021, pending the hearing and determination of its appeal. The dispute concerns leased spaces at Imenti House in Nairobi's CBD. The Appellant asserted that while BPRT Cause No. E198 of 2021 was pending - with injunctions in place restraining its eviction - the Respondent filed the Magistrate Court claim and obtained interlocutory orders directing it to hand over vacant possession, orders which conflicted with those of the Tribunal, a court of equal status. The Appellant cited substantial loss given over Kshs 16 million invested in the premises. The Respondent opposed, contending the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an 8-year lease that was not a controlled tenancy, and that the Appellant was in rent arrears of Kshs 5,243,326. The court found the Respondent had not denied the pre-existing Tribunal orders, and had never raised the jurisdiction question before the Tribunal or the Magistrate's Court. Holding that filing the Magistrate Court case to overturn the Tribunal's orders was an abuse of court process, and that the impugned orders engendered confusion and uncertainty in the administration of justice, the court allowed the application, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Magistrate Court proceedings amounted to an abuse of court process given the pre-existing BPRT orders

Holding

Filing the Magistrate Court case and obtaining orders with the effect of overturning existing BPRT orders restraining eviction was an abuse of the court's process by the Respondent

Reasoning

The court found the Respondent had not denied filing the Magistrate Court case while BPRT Cause No. E198/2021 was pending, nor denied the Tribunal's orders restraining eviction. The Respondent only argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, but nowhere in its documents had it raised the jurisdiction question before the Tribunal or Magistrate's Court, raising it for the first time. Orders that cause confusion and disorder in the administration of justice cannot stand, so stay was warranted.

p. 2
02

Whether the Respondent could raise the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction for the first time before this court

Holding

The court expressed doubt, noting the Respondent had never raised jurisdiction before the Tribunal or the Magistrate's Court

Reasoning

The Respondent contended the BPRT lacked jurisdiction over the dispute because the 8-year lease with Rannet Ltd was not a controlled tenancy, rendering the Tribunal's interim orders of no consequence. The court observed, however, that nowhere in the Respondent's documents was the jurisdiction question ever raised before the Tribunal or the Magistrate's Court, and the court was at a loss whether it was being raised for the very first time on the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties amounts to an abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 11.11.2021 is allowed (stay of execution of the ruling and orders of 22nd October 2021 in Milimani Magistrates Court ELC Case No. E237 of 2021 and stay of further proceedings pending the appeal)
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Cases cited (4)

  • Maryane Camere Ojiambo vs Samwel Muchoki
    (2021) eKLR
  • Doshi Iran Managers Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & Another
    (2020) eKLR
  • Ezekiel Mule Musembi v H Young & Company E.A Limited
    (2019) eKLR
  • Republic v Paul Kihara Kariuki, Attorney General & 2 Others ex-parte Law Society of Kenya
    (2020) eKLR
On appeal from
Milimani Magistrates Court
ELC Case No. E237 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/stay jurisdiction over an appeal from the Magistrates' Court (ELC appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maworks Investments Company Limited v Meru Central Coffee Cooperative Union [2022] KEELC 1285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion application dated 11.11.2021 (appeal from Milimani Magistrates Court ELC Case No. E237 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1285/eng@2022-02-16

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