Jacinta Njeru Kaitha v David K. Kanyiri [2015] KECA 647 (KLR)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 647
- Citation
- [2015] KECA 647 (KLR)
The court found that the trial court had correctly identified the orders made in favor of the appellant in BPRT 38/2013, but there was an error in the confusion of dates. The court concluded that the notice of motion was not competent due to the appellant not serving it within the required seven days.
Facts
The appellant was a tenant of the respondent in a commercial business place. The respondent threatened eviction, leading to the appellant filing a case in the Business Premises Rent Tribunal and seeking leave to commence proceedings against the respondent for contempt of court.
Issues
- Whether the court was properly seized of the matter
- Whether there were orders in place capable of being breached
- If issue number (ii) is answered in the affirmative, whether these had been served on the respondent as alleged
- Whether the notice of motion before the court was competent
Reasoning
The court noted the confusion in the dates of the orders and the lack of certified copies and return of service, leading to the conclusion that the notice of motion was not competent.
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
Loading judgment…