CHEPTOO KIPROTICH JOHANA VS NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION

RULING

1. The application before court is one seeking injunctive orders against the Respondents.
2. The Petitioners/Applicants commenced the proceeding through a Constitutional Petition and not a Plaint.
3. In other words, the main issue for determination in the Petition is whether the Applicants rights have been violated by the Respondent.
4. In the present application, the Applicants are seeking an injunction against the Respondent based in the Notice dated 23^rd October, 2024.
5. In this notice, the Respondent are offering the houses located in Elgon View for sale to the general public.
6. The Petitioners have confirmed that their houses were also included in this Notice dated 23^rd October, 2024.
7. However, the Applicants being the tenants in occupation believed that they should be granted the first opportunity to purchase the houses due to their occupation and developments on the properties.
8. On the issue of a prima facie case, the Notice of 23^rd October, 2024 only offered the houses for sale.
9. The Notice did not in any way terminate the tenancy agreements that were between the Petitioners and the Respondent.
10. The court’s view is that the Notice also invited the Petitioner to follow requirements contained therein to convert  their tenancies to ownership.
11. In the absence of any communication from the Respondent to terminate and/or demand for vacant possession from the Petitioners, this court is of the view that there was no prima facie evidence to show that the Respondents were intending to dislodge the Petitioners of the properties without following the law.
12. To make matter worse, the Respondent withdrew the offer for sale on the 3^rd February, 2025 and therefore extinguished any intended actions of selling and/or disposing the Petitioners’ properties to third parties.
13. The second limp is what injury the Petitioners stand to suffer if the orders are not granted and incapable of being compensated by way of damages.
14. It is clear that as of today, there is no threat by the Respondent to interfere with the Petitioners’ Tenancy Agreements.
15. Consequently, there is no harm that this court can protect as the Respondent have recognized the Petitioners Tenancy Agreements which are still on going.
16. In other words, the application for an injunction is not merited as there is no threat of the Petitioners’ Tenancy Agreements being interfered with.
17. As to the issue of costs, it is settled law that costs are only awarded when a party is successful.
18. The fact that the Petitioner had filed this application is not automatic that they would have succeeded in its litigation.
19. As it stands now, the threat which was perceived to likely injure the Applicants has been neutralized before the Applicants succeeded in their application.
20. Each party will bear its own costs.
21. In conclusion the court makes the following orders;
22. The application dated 5^th November, 2021 is not merited and in fact been overtaken by event.
23. Each party will bear their costs.

DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED Virtually in Eldoret ELC Court on 2^nd April, 2025.

IN THE PRESENCE OF;

Court Assistant: Brian

Petitioners:  Ms. Odwa for Petitioners

Respondents: Mr. Situma for Respondent