Lucy Waithira v Daniel Baragu & John Kamau Mwangi [2014] KEHC 30 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAKURU

CIVIL CASE NO. 156 OF 2010

LUCY WAITHIRA........................................PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

VERSUS

DANIEL BARAGU........................................DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT

JOHN KAMAU MWANGI. ...................................INTERESTED PARTY

RULING

Baragu Daniel, ("the applicant") brought the notice of motion dated 21st February, 2013 seeking to join John Kamau Mwangi  to the proceedings herein as an interested party and to temporarily  restrain  him (John  Kamau  Mwangi) from selling, transferring, and/ or in any other way  dealing with  all that parcel of land known as Title  No. Bahati/ Kabatini Block 106-45 pending the hearing and determination  of  the  suit herein. The   applicant also wants the court to   punish the plaintiff (Lucy Waithira Baragu) and the interested party for disobeying the  orders of  the  court issued  on 5th October, 2010  restraining both the, applicant  and the respondent from disposing of, alienating, dealing, and/ or  in any  other  way interferring  with the matrimonial  properties   namely:-Plot No.303 Kiamunyeki and  two  (2)  posho mills thereon,  Home Assets,  J.N  Sawmill at  Kiamunyeki, Ngomongo Sawmill at Engarusha  in   Nakuru,  Motor   vehicle registration  number KAB 480T and Direct  Engineering Workshop pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

The  application is supported by the  affidavit of the applicant and is  premised  on   the grounds that  the applicant jointly with   the   plaintiff/ respondent bought, among other assets, three plots at Ngomongo and installed  a sawmill in 2007. The plaintiff filed  an application on  12th July, 2010 seeking conservatory orders in  respect of the  matrimonial properties which included the three plots in  Engarusha in Nakuru at Ngomongo and  the  sawmill installed  therein.  On 5. 10. 2010 the court issued conservative orders for all matrimonial properties pending the hearing and determination of this suit. The applicant contends that despite the existence of the said court   orders, the   plaintiff, without   his   consent, processed and obtained title deeds of the three (3) plots in Ngomongo in her name and purported to transfer Plot No.Bahati/Kabatini Block 1/106/-45 to the interested party. The applicant’s contends that the respondents (contemnors) were   aware of the existence of the orders of the court and were as such done in contempt of the dignity and authority of this court.

In   reply  to   the  application,  the   interested  party  filed   the notice of  preliminary objection dated  15th  March, 2013.  In that notice of preliminary objection, the interested party contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to  adjudicate on his  right to  the property herein  because he  is neither a wife nor  a husband to  the  principal parties in  dispute; that the parcel  of  land  herein  is not the subject  matter  of  the settlement  prayed  for in  the  originating summons in  the original  and / or  the amended suit; and  that  the applicant having not  filed  any  counterclaim  to the  plaintiffs  suit cannot lodge  a motion for orders of injunction.

On 20/3/2014 the court directed that the preliminary objection be disposed of by way of written submissions. Subsequently, the parties filed their respective submissions, which I have read and considered.

In the submissions filed on behalf of the interested party, it is submitted that under section 17 of the Married Women's Properties Act 1882, existence of a husband and wife relationship is a prequisite, for the court to have jurisdiction. It is  reiterated that  the court does not have jurisdiction to determine  the   interested   party's  property  rights   herein because  no   husband   and  wife   relationship  exists  either between the  plaintiff and the  interested party or  between the applicant and the interested party.

Further that the property which the plaintiff subdivided and transferred to him does not form part of the properties listed in the originating summons.  For that reason, the interested party has submitted that there is no substratum for the defendant's claim.

Finally,  the    interested  party  contends  that  the  notice  of motion brought  by  the  applicant is  incompetent because he did  not  lodge  a counterclaim to the  plaintiffs suit.

Terming the interested  party's  preliminary objection misplaced  and  diversionary, the   applicant has  submitted that  the issue between the applicant is  disobedience of  a valid   court  order.  Contending that  the   plaintiff  and  the interested  party  were   aware  of  the   existence  of  the court order  herein  when  they  entered  into  the  impugned transaction;  and  that  the  preliminary objection herein  is aimed  at  short  circuiting  the  due  process  of   law  and interferring with  the duty of the court to  inquire whether its orders were  disobeyed. The applicant has reiterated his contention that the interested party's property formed part of the suit properties before the plaintiff transferred it to him.

Pointing out  that  under  order  40   rule  3(1)   of   the   Civil Procedure  Rules,  this   court   has   power  to punish  for disobedience or  breach of its injunctive orders the applicant submitted that court orders must be  obeyed by all persons who are aware of their existence and not  necessarily parties to  the  suit. In this regard the applicant cited the decision in Christine  Wangari   Gachigi  v. Elizabeth  Wambua   &   8 others;  Nakuru  High   Court   Succession  cause  No.96 of 2000; where it was  observed:-

"The most important aspect of obedience of an order of the court is knowledge. If a person   becomes aware  of  an  order  of  the court  which binds him, he  has  no  option but  to  obey  it.  Such person need not be a party to the suit."

From the preliminary objection herein and the submissions by the respective parties the issues for determination are:-

1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear   and determine the dispute between the   applicant and the interested parties?

2. Whether the applicant’s claim against the interested party is unsustainable for lack of substratum?

3. Whether in  absence of a counterclaim or  a set  off or  a cross  suit  an   injunction  can   issue  in   favour  of  the applicant?

As    concerns  the    first    issue,  the   interested  party  has submitted that, under Section 17  of the  MWPA 1882, under which  the  suit  herein  is   premised,  the    court   can  only entertain a  dispute if and if only the  parties to  the  dispute are  a husband and wife.  Contending that he   is neither a husband nor a wife to the principal parties to the suit, the interested party has   submitted that   this   court   lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine his right to the property cited therein.

Whereas I agree with  the  interested party that under section 17 of the Married Women's   Propertity  Act 1882,  the jurisdiction of this court is to  hear and determine questions between spouses,  I cannot agree with  the  interested party's argument that the court cannot hear and determine his right to  the property mentioned in  the applicant's notice of motion herein  simply because  he is not a spouse to any  of  the parties in  dispute.  I  say   so   because  the   interested  party having, allegedly, obtained part  of  the   properties in  dispute between  the  spouses  during  the  pendency of  the  current suit, he  became an interested party with  regard to  any court proceedings in  respect of  that  property. In  this  regard see Rule  2 of  the Constitution of  Kenya (Protection of  Rights and   Fundamental  Freedoms)  Practice   and   Procedure Rules, 2013 which defines an interest party as:

"a person or entity that has an identifiable stake or legal  interest  or  duty  in  the proceedings before the court but  is not a party to the proceedings or  may not be directly involved in  the litigation."

As concerns the second issue, whereas it  is  true that the originating  summon instituted by the plaintiff does  not mention   the property   subsequently transferred   to the interested  party, taking note of  the   applicant's averment in his replying affidavit to  the  plaintiffs application dated 12th July, 2010, I find  and hold that there is  a dispute between the  plaintiff  and the  applicant regarding ownership of all  the home  assets  jointly owned  between  the   plaintiff and  the applicant. As the applicant claims that  the   property which was sub-divided  and   subsequently transferred   to the interested party formed part of assets jointly owned between himself and the  plaintiff, I find  the  this question not  to  fit in the   ambit of  a  preliminary objection properly so  called.  In this  regard  see   the   decision  of  the   Court  of  Appeal,  Sir Charles  Newbold, President  in   Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing  Co. Ltd  v.   West End  Distributors Ltd [1969] E.A.  696 where he held:-

"A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure   point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.  It   cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion."

To  effectually determine  the question as  to whether  the property the plaintiff subdivided  and   transferred   to the interested party   formed  party of   the  suit property as contended  by the applicant  and  denied  by  the interested party, I hold the  view  that  evidence is required to  prove or disprove that fact. That fact renders it  difficult to  determine the   issue  preliminarily as  no   evidence has been tendered capable of  assisting the court ascertain  that  fact. In  this regard see the  affidavit that  the applicant  swore in  reply to the   plaintiffs  application dated 12th  July,  2010.  In   that affidavit the applicant, inter alia, deposed:-

"5. That the properties listed by the applicant (read the plaintiff) at paragraph 5 of her affidavit were acquired as follows:-

(iv) Ngomongo sawmill occupies three plots and it was jointly acquired.

(vii) All the home assets are jointly owned between myself and the applicant."

As concerns the third issue,  my  view  is that a court has discretion to  grant a temporary injunction to  restrain any act likely to waste, damage, or alienate    the property in dispute or to stay and prevent the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the  property until the  disposal of the  suit or  until further orders. Under Order 40   rule  1  of  the  Civil   Procedure Rules that  discretion is exercisable notwithstanding  existence  of  a  prayer  for injunction by the  parties as the  aim  is to preserve the subject matter of the suit. The rules provides as follows:-

"40 (1).  Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-`

(a) that any  property in dispute in a suit is in danger of   being  wasted, damaged,   or alienated by any   party  to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree;

the  court may  by  order  grant  a  temporary injunction to  restrain such  act,  or  make such other order  for the  purpose of staying and preventing the  wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal, or disposition of the property as  the  court  thinks fit  until the  disposal of the suit or until further orders."

It is clear from  the  foregoing provision of the law  that the  law does not  contemplate the   situation  urged by  the interested party as the  only  situation in  which a temporary injunction can  issue.

In   any   event  the  parties   herein  (the  plaintiff and  the applicant) had  recorded a consent, which was adopted as an order of the court, to the effect  that both the plaintiff and the defendant  be  restraining  from disposing  of,  alienating, dealing,  and or   in   any  other  way  interferring  with the matrimonial properties namely:-Plot No.303 Kiamunyeki and two (2) posho mills thereon, Home  Assets, J.N Sawmill at Kiamunyeki,Ngomongo Saw mill at Engarusha in  Nakuru, Motor vehicle registration  number  KAB  480T  and  Direct Engineering Workshop pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

Since the applicant contends that the property transferred to the  interested party forms part of the   suit  properties listed therein,  I  find  and hold   that the  court has  jurisdiction to issue  the orders  sought  in  the impugned  application  for purposes of  preserving  the subject  matter  of  the  dispute pending the  hearing and determination of the  application. It is only  after  it is ascertained that the  property transferred  to the  interested party does not  form  part of the   suit property when  a  determination  can  be made as  to  whether  the applicant has a viable case against the  plaintiff and the  third party.

The upshot of the foregoing is that the preliminary objection has no merit and is dismissed with costs   to   the defendant/ applicant.

Dated, signed and delivered this 27th day of August 2014 at Nakuru

H.A OMONDI

JUDGE