Case ID:171260

Ronald Inganga Ludah v David Abdallah Itemere & another [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Miscellaneous 5 of 2020

Parties:

Ronald Inganga Ludah v David Abdallah Itemere & Kennedy Shituri Omutanyi

Date Delivered:

23 Feb 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Kakamega

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Nelly Awori Matheka

Citation:

Ronald Inganga Ludah v David Abdallah Itemere & another [2021] eKLR

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Kakamega

Case Outcome:

Application dismissed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA

ELC MISC. CASE NO. 5 OF 2020

RONALD INGANGA LUDAH....................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

DAVID ABDALLAH ITEMERE

KENNEDY SHITURI OMUTANYI.....................RESPONDENTS

RULING

The application is dated 30

th

April 2019 and seeks the following orders:-

1. That this application be certified urgent and heard ex-parte in the first instance.

2. That the orders granted herein at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal Court on reference dated 21

st

July, 2015 be enforced and the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents be directed to return the tenant’s business and business property forthwith.

3. That the court to issue orders for the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents to provide this court with legal documents of ownership of the said parcel of plot Marama/Lunza/1960 since all of them claim ownership leaving the applicant confused.

4. That the court to issue orders for Butere Police Station to supervise/enforce the opening of his business and return of his business property and records.

5. That the costs of this application be paid by the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents.

It is supported by the annexed affidavit of Ronald Inganga Ludah and grounds the orders dated 21

st

July, 2015 were obtained lawfully and should be enforced by this honourable court. The 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents have abused and misused this courts process to commit an illegal act for which the applicant/tenant has now lodged a complaint with this honourable court for enforcement action and return of the business and business property. The entire application and orders of Business Premises Rent Tribunal Court ought to be have been honoured. The applicant/tenant is willing to vacate the said business property if his business and business property is returned in full.

The applicant submitted that the Business Premises Rent Tribunal issued orders but the 1

st

and the 2

nd

respondents never bothered to obey them. (Attached are the orders, proceedings of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal Court, a letter to Kenya power, a letter from assistant County Commissioner – Marama West Ward, Chief’s letter marked RIL 1-14). That the acts of the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents are high handed, extortionist, irregular, illegal, unprofessional and not befitting their status of a civilized person living under rule of law.

This court has considered the application and the submissions therein. The respondents were served but failed to respond. The Business Premises Rent Tribunal is one among many tribunals established under various laws enacted by parliament to deal with disputes that arise in the course of the regulation and administration of certain matters. The tribunal was established in 1965 through an Act of Parliament known as

The Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act) Cap.301, Laws of Kenya.

Section 14 (1) of Cap 301 has clearly stipulated as follows:

‘ A duly certified copy of any determination or order of a Tribunal may be filed in a competent subordinate court of the first class by any party to the proceedings before such Tribunal or by the Tribunal, and on such copy being filed and notice thereof being served on the Tribunal by the party filing the same such determination or order may, subject to any right of appeal conferred by or under this Act, be enforced as a decree of the court.’

In the instant application the applicant is seeking the orders granted herein at the Business Premises Rent Tribunal Court on reference dated 21

st

July, 2015 be enforced and the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents be directed to return the tenant’s business and business property forthwith. I note that the orders of the Tribunal are yet to be adopted by the Magistrate’s Court as an order of the court. I find that the said orders from the Chairman of the Business Premises Tribunal should have been first filed in the Magistrates Court for adoption and decree extracted, before the Applicant could apply for its enforcement. In the Case of

Travel Planners Limited vs The Managing Director, Kenya Railway Corporation & Another (2008) KLR,

I the court held that;

“The net result is that proceedings are premature. Counsel should have the said order filed in court under Section 14 (1) Cap 301. After such adoption he should extract the order, serve, the same for compliance and it is only after such adoption, extraction and service of the adopted order that breach can arise.”

For these reasons I find this application has no merit and I dismiss it with no orders as to costs as it was undefended.

It is so ordered.

DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA THIS 23

RD

FEBRUARY 2021.

N.A. MATHEKA

JUDGE