Automated Summary
Key Facts
The plaintiffs, sub-tenants of the 1st defendant, sought an injunction to prevent eviction from premises (LR No.209/138/25) after the 1st defendant failed to remit collected rent to the 2nd and 3rd defendants (landlords). The 2nd and 3rd defendants proclaimed distress for unpaid rent by the 1st defendant and attempted eviction, which the plaintiffs resisted. The court ruled the suit not res judicata (as plaintiffs weren't parties in prior cases) or sub judice, and upheld the plaintiffs' locus standi to seek direct rent payment orders to the landlords.
Transaction Type
Lease agreement between sub-tenants and landlords regarding rent payments and eviction
Issues
- The court determined whether the plaintiffs' application for an injunction was misconceived, bad in law, or frivolous, concluding it was not.
- The court evaluated if the plaintiffs' suit was res judicata or sub judice due to prior cases (HCCC No.96 and 741 of 2005) involving the same premises and parties, ruling res judicata inapplicable as the plaintiffs were not parties to the prior suits.
- The court assessed the plaintiffs' locus standi to bring the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, affirming their capacity as sub-tenants seeking direct rent payment rights.
Holdings
- The court held that the plaintiffs' suit is not barred by res judicata, as the plaintiffs were not parties to the previous suits (HCCC No.96 of 2005 and HCCC No.741 of 2005) and the relief sought in this case (direct rent payment to landlords) was not an issue in those suits. The judge emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply here.
- The court overruled the objection that the plaintiffs lack locus standi, stating they have a legitimate claim to pay rent directly to the landlords (2nd and 3rd defendants) and that their status as sub-tenants requires judicial determination. The judge affirmed the plaintiffs' right to seek this relief.
- The court rejected the sub judice objection, noting the plaintiffs are not parties to HCCC No.741 of 2005 and the issues in this suit, while touching on the same premises, are not identical. The judge ruled the filing of the present suit does not make it sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Remedies
- The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their servants or agents from evicting the plaintiffs from the premises (LR. No.209/138/25, Tea Room Exhibition, River Road, Nairobi) or distressing their goods.
- The court ordered that rent be paid directly to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, with the balance used for security, water, electricity, and service charges. Any remaining amount was to be deposited in court or an interest-earning account.
Legal Principles
The court overruled the preliminary objection that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by res judicata, noting that the plaintiffs were not parties to the previous suits (HCCC No.96 of 2005 and HCCC No.741 of 2005) and that the relief sought in this case (direct rent payment to landlords) was not an issue in those earlier cases. The ruling emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply here as the matter was not previously litigated against the plaintiffs.
Precedent Name
- HCCC No.96 of 2005
- HCCC No.741 of 2005
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Act
Judge Name
F. AZANGALALA
Passage Text
- Having found that the plaintiffs' application and suit are not sub judice or res judicata and that the issue of capacity and locus standi has not been well taken, it is plain that the plaintiffs' application is not misconceived, bad in law or frivolous.
- Even if the plaintiffs had instituted that suit, by dint of the provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act the mere filing of the present suit perse would not attract the sanction of striking it out.
- In the premises I hold that in the circumstances of this case the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the plaintiffs' suit and application.
Damages / Relief Type
- Order directing rent payments to 2nd and 3rd defendants with allocations for security, water, electricity, and service charge.
- Injunction issued to restrain eviction and distress of plaintiffs' goods from the premises.