SAMUEL MUNYI KAMAU & 14 OTHERS v CHARLES MWANGI KAGONIA & 2others [2006] eKLR

Kenya Law

Automated Summary

Key Facts

The plaintiffs, sub-tenants of the first defendant (a tenant of the second and third defendants), sought a permanent injunction to prevent eviction from their premises and an order to pay rent directly to the second and third defendants. The first defendant, acting as an agent, had been collecting rent but not remitting it to the landlords. The second and third defendants attempted to evict the plaintiffs and distress their goods for non-payment by the first defendant. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by res judicata or sub judice as they were not parties to prior cases involving the same premises, and their claim for direct rent payment to the landlords was a new issue not addressed in previous suits. The court also dismissed objections regarding the plaintiffs' locus standi, noting their possession of the premises and the need for judicial determination of their status.

Issues

  • The court considered whether the plaintiffs' application and suit were misconceived, bad in law, or frivolous. It was held that the application was not misconceived as the plaintiffs sought a valid legal remedy to pay rent directly to the landlords and address non-payment by the first defendant.
  • The 2nd and 3rd defendants argued the suit was res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing HCCC No.96 of 2005. The court rejected this, noting the plaintiffs were not parties to the prior suit and the relief sought here (direct rent payment) was not an issue in the previous case.
  • The objection that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiffs' status as sub-tenants and their request for direct rent payment recognition required determination and could not be resolved via a preliminary objection.

Holdings

  • The court overruled the preliminary objection, concluding that the plaintiffs' application is not misconceived, bad in law, or frivolous. The application for an interim injunction was upheld, and the suit was allowed to proceed.
  • The plaintiffs were found to have locus standi and capacity to bring the suit against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, as they are in possession of the premises and seek recognition of their legal status. The court determined this issue cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection.
  • The application and suit were not sub judice, as the plaintiffs are not parties to HCCC No.741 of 2005, and the issues in this case, while related to the same premises, are not identical. The court emphasized that the mere filing of the present suit does not violate Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  • The court held that the plaintiffs' suit is not barred by res judicata because they 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 the 2nd and 3rd defendants) was not an issue in those earlier cases.

Remedies

  • The court overruled the preliminary objection filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants and ordered that the costs be paid to the plaintiffs.
  • A temporary injunction was issued on 10.8.2006 to restrain the 2nd and 3rd defendants from distraining for rent and evicting the plaintiffs until the hearing on 28.8.2006.
  • The court granted a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their agents from evicting the plaintiffs from LR No. 209/138/25, Tea Room Exhibition, River Road, Nairobi.

Legal Principles

The court applied the principle of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, determining that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by prior judgments between the first defendant and the second/third defendants. The judge concluded the matter was not directly and substantially in issue in the previous suits since the plaintiffs were not parties and sought distinct reliefs (direct rent payment and eviction prevention).

Precedent Name

  • 1st Defendant v 2nd and 3rd Defendants
  • 1st Defendant v 2nd and 3rd Defendants and Others

Cited Statute

  • Civil Procedure Act – Section 7
  • Civil Procedure Act – Section 6

Judge Name

F. Azangalala

Passage Text

  • It is plain that the plaintiffs' application is not misconceived, bad in law or frivolous.
  • I hold that in the circumstances of this case the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the plaintiffs' suit and application.
  • the plaintiff's application and suit cannot be defeated on the ground that they are sub judice.